A letter from Paper (FiftyThree) to Paper (Facebook)

423 点作者 henryaym超过 11 年前

45 条评论

ynniv超过 11 年前

People are going to call the app by Facebook "Facebook Paper" because "Paper" is simply too generic. 53's drawing app name is not strong either. Their iOS app is not called "Paper", but "Paper by FiftyThree". Their icon is not of paper, but of a napkin style rendering of "53". For all intents, the drawing simulation brand name is "FiftyThree". There was a brief moment in history when people thought "I wonder if 53 was acquired". That time has passed, and no one will mistake them from now on."Facebook Paper" is an alternative interface to Facebook."Paper by FiftyThree" is a drawing application.Other than that they are both software, there's little room for confusion. 53 can get upset and write a blog post about it, but there is no substantive damage done. They'll probably sell more of their own product because of this.

评论 #7172292 未加载

评论 #7172722 未加载

评论 #7172293 未加载

评论 #7172116 未加载

评论 #7172327 未加载

评论 #7174213 未加载

petenixey超过 11 年前

Pfft. What a silly request. This is an entirely different application.Should we expect an upcoming blog post from 53 complaining that Crayola has released a new product entitled "Pencil"?If you want to protect your name, use a protectable name. If you're going to use an entirely generic name then deal with it... wait hang on... Dunder Mifflin just called... they want their name back too.Cool company, great products, daft blog post.

评论 #7172181 未加载

评论 #7172179 未加载

评论 #7172240 未加载

评论 #7172231 未加载

wavesplash超过 11 年前

There are some great opinions posted so let me add some data from uspto.gov (use 'trademark search' from the menu) and a touch of what I understand of Trademark law after filing a few myself:53 was granted a US Trademark on the phrase 'Paper by FiftyThree' on December 2013 for trademark categories 21 23 26 36 38 and it appears international category 9 with a first-used-in-commerce claim of March 2013.53 are obligated to enforce their mark in those categories otherwise they risk losing it. This is the same reason Facebook goes after anything with 'face or book' that even vaguely seems similar. If they don't they risk losing the Facebook mark.The law sides with the trademark holder as long as they enforce the mark.As many people have mentioned, 'Paper' is generic and 53 didn't get the word 'Paper' by itself. It was granted the mark 'Paper by FiftyThree'. Since Facebook's app isn't called 'Paper by Facebook' this leaves some wiggle room if FB wants to challenge the claim if it heads to court. Facebook has deep pockets and good lawyers, so perhaps they've already calculated the risk and is willing to fight in court. 53 may not be able to afford that fight (cash or distraction wise).TL;DR: 53 is obligated to enforce their Trademark and the letter to Facebook is a manifestation of that obligation. Unfortunately their mark isn't just on the word 'paper' so it will be interesting to see if this fades away or the parties head to court.

评论 #7172589 未加载

christiangenco超过 11 年前

My first thought when I read the Facebook Paper announcement was along these lines.This is a big social faux paus on Facebook's part - at least among the developer community - but I really don't see either company changing their Paper's name. I imagine it'll go similarly to Google's Go name collision[1].How should the little guy in these situations be legally protected? On one hand it's clear that "candy" shouldn't be trademarked, but "paper" is just as generic a term. Maybe the lesson here is not to name your product generic nouns and avoid the trouble all together.1. <a href="https://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9" rel="nofollow">https://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9</a>

评论 #7173940 未加载

nikcub超过 11 年前

The irony here is that Facebook are extremely aggressive about protecting their own name. They have sued other companies for using generic words as part of their names, like 'face' or 'book' or 'wall'.<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/25/business/la-fi-0826-facebook-suit-20100825" rel="nofollow">http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/25/business/la-fi-0826-...</a>

thrush超过 11 年前

It's a matter of respect. Paper (FiftyThree) is a well known brand and app, so basically the Facebook developers were 100% aware that they were utilizing someone's name (at least they should have been), and therefore they went ahead to publish their new app with complete disregard for what already existed.

评论 #7172089 未加载

评论 #7172123 未加载

评论 #7172079 未加载

throwaway420超过 11 年前

I'm a big fan of Paper from 53 (not the most feature-filled drawing tool, but definitely the most pleasant to use) and respect that they wrote a polite request about this and tried to use this as a marketing opportunity rather than threatening legal action or citing some bizarre trademark argument where they claim to have the right to force others not to use a word. 53 comes across pretty well here thus far IMO.

dctoedt超过 11 年前

It's helpful to analyze this the way a U.S. court likely would. Suppose hypothetically that the following are true:(A) that the mark PAPER is protectable for what 53 sells -- and I think that's highly likely; PAPER in this context strikes me as a "suggestive" and therefore protectable mark [1]; and(B) that 53 was the first user of the mark; and(C) that there's a "likelihood of confusion" about the origin, sponsorship, or endorsement of the companies' products or services -- this entails looking at seven or eight factual questions, namely the "strength" of the mark; the proximity of the goods; the similarity of the marks in appearance and/or sound; any evidence of actual confusion; similarity in marketing channels used; the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser the junior user's intent in selecting the mark; and the likelihood of expansion of the respective product lines [2].In that situation, as the junior user, Facebook would (or should) be liable for infringement.Another point: 53 can be damaged by "reverse confusion," namely people thinking that 53 is the one that's ripping off Facebook [3].[1] <a href="http://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/detail/manual/TMEP/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e6993.xml" rel="nofollow">http://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/detail/manual/TMEP/Oct2012/TMEP-1...</a>[2] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement</a>[3] <a href="http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reverse-confusion-trademark/" rel="nofollow">http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reverse-confusion-trademark...</a>

atacrawl超过 11 年前

One of Facebook’s board members is an investor in FiftyThree.This line tells the whole story. This isn't just the case of a large company perhaps not noticing another product in the digital space with the same name. This is very deliberate, and the CEO comes across as flabbergasted with Facebook's decision.

dpcheng2003超过 11 年前

Honestly, I think we'll see more downloads of Paper (53) because of confused people looking to download Paper (FB). I see this is as a huge PR win for 53 and both will end up co-existing and succeeding (probably).There are TWO billion-dollar storage companies with Box in the name. Now that's confusing.

评论 #7173253 未加载

评论 #7172488 未加载

nicolethenerd超过 11 年前

When I first heard about Facebook's Paper, I wondered how that conversation could have possibly gone down..."So we're building this great new experience, and we want to call it Paper...""Isn't there already an incredibly popular mobile application called Paper?""So?"Some variant of this conversation must have happened, right? It's not like nobody at Facebook has heard of 53 - how did this name ever get out the door?It seems like most of us here on HN think of 53's Paper when we think of 'app called Paper' - perhaps this isn't the case in the overall consumer market (but then again, Paper - 53's, that is - was once featured prominently on Apple.com - not just the app store, but the main website) - but to me at least, it feels like Facebook is using a name which is 'already taken'.

iambateman超过 11 年前

Might I suggest that this is not the first time Facebook has drawn the ire of the tech community and won't be the last.It seems Facebook simply doesn't care. FiftyThree's complaint will blow over in a few days.However, FiftyThree is signing up plenty of new users from the story. They're probably genuinely upset but this won't be their death and it might even be a good thing. I'd never heard of Paper beforehand.

shanselman超过 11 年前

Companies, even hip web 3.0 companies, need to stop taking generic common nouns and declaring them trademarks. From Surface to Paper, these names are far too easy to confuse.

评论 #7172351 未加载

评论 #7172486 未加载

pirateking超过 11 年前

Humans have done just fine for a long time managing their own mental namespaces. Paper already means different things in different contexts before either of these apps - "I am writing a paper", "have you read today's paper?", "have your papers ready for inspection". There are also many different brands and types of paper with very different material properties and use cases.Choosing an already in use word for any new publicly accessible thing complicates the global namespace a little more than it already is, but if it is the name you really wish to give it, sometimes a little distributed parsing overhead is better than the alternatives - trademarking "paper" or calling your product "Payper" instead.

untilHellbanned超过 11 年前

I feel for FiftyThree but the ship of anyone caring of FB's missteps has long sailed.FB being the first $1 trillion company seems inevitable. FB is the borg of all borgs.

评论 #7172159 未加载

BryantD超过 11 年前

There was a drawing app called Paper in the App Store in October 2011, five months before 53 released their app. It doesn't look very good, but that's not the point.<a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/paper/id474402870?mt=8" rel="nofollow">https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/paper/id474402870?mt=8</a>

drfloob超过 11 年前

All respect issues aside, generic names like this are a pain in the ass. "go" (google) and "react" (facebook) are similar. For example, Twitter-folk have taken to using #ReactJS to mean Facebook's React UI framework, but react.js[1] has been around a while already, and it does some similar stuff (if you squint a bit).You can't mention or search for them without barfing out the company name, and sometimes a specific property alongside to be unambiguous about your meaning. It makes finding discussions and blog posts harder because people don't have a common language for these poorly-named things.It just seems like these companies are shooting themselves in the foot. Is natural word-of-mouth growth no longer a concern?[1]: <a href="http://reactjs.com/" rel="nofollow">http://reactjs.com/</a>

scotthtaylor超过 11 年前

Can both not exist? I don't see how there could be overlap or confusion from potential customers.

评论 #7171976 未加载

评论 #7171965 未加载

评论 #7171964 未加载

评论 #7171977 未加载

bikamonki超过 11 年前

The world of app names is weirdly. Obviously you cannot put up an app named Facebook but most likely you can put one named FB Calculator. The way I see it, parts of an app name can be protected, others are generic. It is like subdomains: news.ycombinator.com cannot ask news.fiftythree.com to stop using news.Anyhow, what's the name of that FB Android app that turns your phone's desktop into a FB desktop? Or was it iOS app? What exactly was it anyway? FB OS?Don't worry Paper53, PaperFB is probably another fluke, a quick yet clumsy response to Medium's menacing growth, to the wall's irrelevance, to the teens running away....

评论 #7175877 未加载

Finster超过 11 年前

If 53 didn't register Paper as a trademark, they are pretty much SOL, right? If they did, it's pretty clear that Facebook's property creates confusion in the market. Trademark law seems pretty clear here, but IANAL.

评论 #7172584 未加载

BrownBuffalo超过 11 年前

The bigger your footprint becomes in the arena of the Internet, the more care it takes to make sure you are not stepping on other's IP. The problem with the Interwebs is that IP crosses so many silos and this isn't just a problem of name but of application of the use here. I can't see FB being more than apologetic to FiftyThree. As much as FiftyThree thinks they have just cause here - its more of a use / intention than it is the confusion with name. I highly doubt anything will come of this, because of the logical difference. Its an identity thing vs. market clash over the same product.

k-mcgrady超过 11 年前

If I was in FiftyThree's position I would be pissed off. But it is a very common word. Simply changing the name of the app to 'Facebook Paper' would probably help with a lot of the issues it might cause.

评论 #7172077 未加载

rokhayakebe超过 11 年前

I, for one, do not think Facebook should change the name because these guys do not own the word "Paper." It would have been different if their app was called FiftyPapers and Facebook used the same name.

basseq超过 11 年前

To be honest, I thought of FiftyThree first, too, when I heard the Facebook announcement. Reading between the lines on this blog post, it doesn't sound like FiftyThree has any legal claim or trademark to hold against Facebook (even if they wanted to litigate).Facebook has already "gone live" with the Paper name—I think it's too late to change it. Whether it's malicious (are they "building their story" off FiftyThree's work?) or not ("Oops") is almost irrelevant here.

antr超过 11 年前

>There’s a simple fix here. We think Facebook can apply the same degree of thought they put into the app into building a brand name of their own.It seems to me that both FB and 53 applied the same degree of thought.IMHO, I find it absurd that private companies want to make common words their own. Couldn't the "degree of thought" 53 put into their naming process led them to think that "paper" was an extremely generic word and this conflict was bound to happen?

malandrew超过 11 年前

Since the Apple store rankings are intentionally opaque and controlled by Apple for its own gain, I secretly hope that the Apple artificially ranks 53 Paper above Facebook Paper. At the end of the day Paper has been an excellent app for the Apple ecosystem and it would be a nice way to say "thanks" to 53. If this happens, then Facebook's use should help 53 get more downloads since most users will go along with the first result in the store.

qq66超过 11 年前

Yesterday: Vitriol slung at King for trying to trademark "Candy." Today: Much more sympathy for 53 attempting the "trademark of public opinion."

评论 #7174278 未加载

micahgoulart超过 11 年前

This app is very unrelated to Facebook as we know it: our friends and their content. That is just one part of the app. It's more a curated news app on the whole.Either Facebook released this as a project their engineers did to test out interfaces or they are collecting data from this app about what is shared and what content is viewed to improve their own feed algorithms.

tomasien超过 11 年前

I think Facebook should change Paper's name mainly because Paper is a horrible name for this product, which is actually "Facebook without all the crap you never use". The fact that "Paper by FiftyThree" is a name already in use is another factor, why fight this battle when the name isn't even very good?

评论 #7172052 未加载

jawaddeo超过 11 年前

Please don't monopolise language! If you tell me I cannot use the word Paper any longer, I resent that deeply, even if Apple and others have done that. Paper is not distinctive enough, not even very imaginative, 'creative' dare I say, of an app that claims to be all about creativity.

covercash超过 11 年前

The actual app titles from the App Store seem different enough to me, and I'm a huge fan of FiftyThree.Paper by FiftyThree (FiftyThree, Inc.)Paper - stories from Facebook (Facebook, Inc.)Another distinction to keep in mind is FiftyThree's Paper is iPad only and Facebook's is iPhone only (although it will install on iPad).

conductr超过 11 年前

53 has chosen to use generic single word nouns for their products. Paper, Pencil, Book. When you do that, you do not deserve the consideration the author is expecting from Facebook.Yes it may cause confusion, but they should have used unique names for their products if they wanted the differentiation.

cheshire137超过 11 年前

Over here in Android land, there's no confusion at all, because neither app is in the Play Store. :P

Touche超过 11 年前

No, you don't own the word Paper.

sleepyK超过 11 年前

Maybe they'll release it as Facebook Paper... But to be honest, if there's a genuine app already bearing that name, they're better off going with something else...

评论 #7172140 未加载

SimonDawlat超过 11 年前

Search for "Paper" in the App Store? Problem solved.

plusbryan超过 11 年前

Won't this only benefit FiftyThree now that many more people are searching the App Store for "Paper"? Seems like a victimless crime.

fuzzywalrus超过 11 年前

I admire FiftyThree but this ship has sailed. Unless FiftyThree is willing to lawyer up, I can't imagine anything changing.

cx42net超过 11 年前

"And that is why, folks, we are proud to announce our newest product : Facebook".That should do it ;)

valvoja超过 11 年前

It's like Apple Inc and Apple Corps.Lesson to self, avoid generic names.

评论 #7172049 未加载

amjaeger超过 11 年前

next they're going to write to wb mason that they should change the name of their product to "printer sheet" or something like that....

Aardwolf超过 11 年前

I don't get it, does this involve actual paper?

jrockway超过 11 年前

See also: Microsoft Windows vs. X Window System.

tethis超过 11 年前

Sweet jesus I cannot read that font.

etanazir超过 11 年前

is this trademark 'descriptive', 'distinctive', or 'generic' ?