I think pg is actually completely 100% on the money here. Kudos to him and YC being bold enough to come out and say it so bluntly.
Here's why I agree with him: I see a lot of comments from people suggesting that Hollywood works on a cycle, where things move along, start to stagnate, and then a dark horse director comes along and creates magic. Altman, Lucas, etc all fit this bill, and they've produced amazing hits. Using money from Hollywood.
So, if this cycle is indeed perpetual, and Hollywood simply has to wait for the next big thing, then why don't they? Instead, we are seeing prosecutions on a massive scale, and grossly out of touch legislation proposed like SOPA and PIPA.
If Hollywood were so confident, and had so much money, why should they care about these infringers? Is it that copyright infringement makes Hollywood lose that much money, or is it that the economic model has changed dramatically, the execs are scared shitless, and are trying dearly to hold on to their once-empire?
I don't think anyone can challenge the assertion that the field has changed dramatically. I also don't think anyone, including the Hollywood execs, has a clue where it's going now. Laws like SOPA seem to be about preventing this change from happening, to keep the power where it was. It sounds like YC's approach is to encourage people to be creative and try to come up with a viable suggestion as to where things are going.
The feature I'm really waiting for is pseudonym support. Vic Gondotra promised it several months ago at Web 2.0. I don't feel comfortable using Google+ at all right now, given that my account, among others, was suspended.
To be fair, there are a bunch of people who have been considering migrating from Godaddy for any number of reasons anyways. The SOPA stuff is just the icing on the cake that's pushed them over the edge. This migration has been coming for a long time.
I've dealt with this exact issue before, although through US law and not UK law. One thing I found is that a lot of places who have trademarks have to send out notices like this in order to maintain their ownership of the trademark.
That said, it's hard to get context on this with the information you've given us. Did this message come from a lawyer, or just an executive working there? A name change can kill a company, and the burden is likely on them to demonstrate that you are directly impacting them, which is hard to say without knowing anything about them. Do you think they have the resources to bring an infringement suit on you?
Trademark infringement can be hard to establish. A quick example: in the US, there are over 30 trademarks on the letters "AMD", for all kinds of different purposes. Trademarks are more than just a name, an infringement has to meet multiple standards.
I would look at the law on the books (in the US it's at uspto.gov, I don't know about the UK) and proceed from there.
Thanks for your reply. In answer to some of your questions - no, this letter is not from a lawyer, it's from the company's chairman. Their trademark was registered in 2010 and I can not confirm if they have the resources for an infringement suit, although I do know that they have not actually launched their product as yet.
I appreciate that the information is a bit limited but my intention is not to publicly name and shame so I have tried not to divulge too many specific details. I can say though, that what we share in common is the word 'owl' in our names, we are both building apps for audio content (in their case audiobooks) and in our case radio programmes / podcasts. Our owl logos also look very distinctly different.
The company who is pursuing us, from their letter, seem to feel that we should rebrand and I am wondering if they really have any grounds or are just being a bit pushy. As you mentioned there are several trademarks for 'AMD' in the US and I've found there are also several trademarks that include the word 'owl'. Of course if we had unknowingly named and branded our company exactly the same name as another registered trademark then we would be seriously considering a change. I am not convinced if it is warranted in this case though.
Here's why I agree with him: I see a lot of comments from people suggesting that Hollywood works on a cycle, where things move along, start to stagnate, and then a dark horse director comes along and creates magic. Altman, Lucas, etc all fit this bill, and they've produced amazing hits. Using money from Hollywood.
So, if this cycle is indeed perpetual, and Hollywood simply has to wait for the next big thing, then why don't they? Instead, we are seeing prosecutions on a massive scale, and grossly out of touch legislation proposed like SOPA and PIPA.
If Hollywood were so confident, and had so much money, why should they care about these infringers? Is it that copyright infringement makes Hollywood lose that much money, or is it that the economic model has changed dramatically, the execs are scared shitless, and are trying dearly to hold on to their once-empire?
I don't think anyone can challenge the assertion that the field has changed dramatically. I also don't think anyone, including the Hollywood execs, has a clue where it's going now. Laws like SOPA seem to be about preventing this change from happening, to keep the power where it was. It sounds like YC's approach is to encourage people to be creative and try to come up with a viable suggestion as to where things are going.