
TWiT is suing Twitter, alleging breach of contract and copyright infringement - gotenyama
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/16/twit-is-suing-twitter-alleging-breach-of-contract-and-copyright-infringement/
======
jhgg
For reference, this is the "contract" which TWiT are arguing. It's a reply
from Ev, to an e-mail from Leo. The full contents are at the bottom of the
filing[1].

>Just got your letter. Don't worry: We're not expanding to audio or video
under the Twitter brand. That news story was the result of an over-zealous
production company (and extremely sloppy reporting by AP). See our post:
[http://blog.twitter.com/2009/05/were-not-making-tv-
show.html](http://blog.twitter.com/2009/05/were-not-making-tv-show.html)

There's a world of difference between "we are not" vs. "we will not". I am not
eating a sandwich right now, but I will most definitely at some point in the
future. One would have to be a fool to interpret this as an agreement to never
expand into audio/video in all of perpetuity. Furthermore, Twitter's own
trademark filing (since 2007) lists "video and audio" as part of the goods and
services provided by their brand. Perhaps this argument should have been made
in 2007, or when it was published for opposition (which is basically the
USPTO's way of saying 'hey, if you are concerned about this trademark
infringing your rights... speak up!') in Feb of 2008 (however no such filing
was placed according to TTAB's records), not 2018.

[1] [https://www.scribd.com/document/369311229/TWiT-vs-
Twitter](https://www.scribd.com/document/369311229/TWiT-vs-Twitter)

------
hthh
"Copyright infringement" is not "trademark infringement" and shouldn't be in
the title.

------
mankash666
How is this any different from patent trolling? Nobody confuses TWiT for
Twitter, or vice versa. I don't think TWiT should be in a position to make
money off Twitter's entry into video, just like some random patent troll
shouldn't be able to monetize ludicrous patents

~~~
Shank
The difference is that somewhat haphazardly, Ev created an oral agreement and
then confirmed the existence of the agreement in an email stating that Twitter
wouldn’t violate it. There’s now a paper trail saying that Twitter wouldn’t do
this, and that basically confirms that at minimum a breach of contract has
occurred.

Patent trolls wait forever to take action on patent use only after a company
gains susbstantial profits. On the other hand, a good example of patent
enforcement would be initiating legal action at the first sign of infringement
— before profits are made.

~~~
mankash666
For the contract to be valid, there needs to be "cause" for confusing TWiT
with Twitter. Most people would agree that there's no cause here, voiding the
"contact"

~~~
jVinc
From TFA: "At that time Williams, on behalf of Twitter, acknowledged the
confusion which likely would arise from the use of TWITTER in the marketplace,
as well as instances of actual confusion which already had arisen."

It doesn't matter what "most people would agree" if the defendant themselves
are on record acknowledging the problem.

I've never heard anyone confuse Apple (The computer company who sell music)
with Apple (The record company founded by the beatles), yet you'd be a fool to
not see the problem in the overlap when Apple were on contract saying they'd
only use it in the computer industry and then started venturing into the music
industry.

~~~
jjeaff
I would say the great majority of people would think Apple Records is part of
Apple music.

~~~
fhars
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer)

------
the_unknown
On a related note - it turns out that he's been running the New Screen Savers
show for a while now - didn't even know about it. Happy memories watching the
original show - I'll have to give this a try.

Oh, and some of the old team pop in Kate Botello, Patrick Norton, etc.

So there's one benefit to suing Twitter - it gets your name in the media again
and all of us old timers can reminisce and catch up on the new series.

~~~
RainaRelanah
I watched the first ~30 episodes and honestly tried to love it, but I couldn't
do it. These days I find Leo so insufferable and conceited that not even my
nostalgia for TSS can save the new show.

If they spread the role of hosting around more like they did back in the day I
would love it. But most episodes didn't feel like TSS, they felt like The Leo
Show with Leo Laporte starring Leo Laporte.

~~~
wierdaaron
What we liked about The Screen Savers and ZDTV/TechTV in general was that it
was the first time somebody was actually talking to a wide audience about the
computers, the web, and gadgets. It was ice water in a desert.

Now, there is no premium on tech content. One no longer needs to seek out Leo
Laporte to hear what’s going on in tech or roundtable discussions about it.

------
superkuh
Seems like Laporte has a solid case with lots of documentation. He'll need it
facing twitter's legal army.

~~~
mc32
They'll probably just have to pay licensing fees (as Apple does to Cisco for
iOS and "iPhone" or to Apple the record co.) Legals can't just make trademarks
go away.

Either way, should be interesting to see the resolution to this.

~~~
baddox
That’s probably a very acceptable outcome! It’s been years since I followed
Twit and similar video content, but it was a big part of my “nerd upbringing.”

~~~
nailer
I know there's a show called This Week in Tech, but do people actually call it
'twit'?

~~~
baddox
I’ve always referred to their entire network as TWiT. If memory serves me
correctly, all their shows (not just This Week in Tech) used to begin with a
bumper that said “Netcasts you love, from people you trust. This.....is TWiT.”

~~~
SyneRyder
They still do. Here it is at the start of this week's MacBreak Weekly episode
(at 24 second mark):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFSJ2axjbW4&t=24s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFSJ2axjbW4&t=24s)

------
covercash
Well clearly Twitter should just acquire TWiT and turn the platform into their
own talking head political commentary network.

------
parasubvert
Leo must be running into hard times. Usually this sort of move is a play when
your main business isn’t thriving.

~~~
oliwarner
Seems like a legitimate trademark defence.

Twitter have gone lumbering into Leo's registered trademark class: "IC 041. US
100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment in the nature of visual and audio
performances, and musical, variety, news and comedy shows."

What do you think they'd do if he started a microblogging service under the
TWiT name?

------
torgoguys
Ha. Leo has been talking about this for a long time, bringing it up here and
there and various shows. He tends to not get that sympathetic of an ear from
his own co-hosts, nor do I have much sympathy. The amount of confusions that
arises is probably minimal and is an issue that exists primarily in his own
head.

I also noticed that in the linked complaint, TWiT still insists on calling
their productions "netcasts" instead of podcasts. The market isn't similarly
confused over requiring an iPod to listen to podcasts, Leo...

------
stevenicr
When twitter was new and fresh, I could see this happening... there was a time
when more people had heard about TWIT than twitter... but those times have
changed, now I'd assume it's many orders of magnitude that people have of
twitter and no clue that TWiT exists or has ever existed. Maybe twitter could
just buy them out and make them a part of the core service somehow - everyone
can get money and press and benefits. Guess the lawyers make money either way.

------
tw1010
Just curious, if he loses this, in what range would the monetary costs that
he'd have to shoulder lie?

~~~
jjeaff
Most likely nothing more than his own legal costs. The suit would have to be
considered frivolous to get anything and the publicly available data already
shows that Laporte has plenty to go on.

------
SoupAficionado
Obvious attempt at a cash grab, as nobody is following Leo Laporte's
productions. TWiT uploads on YouTube often have a few hundred views after
months, nobody would confuse this tiny little podcaster with Twitter the
social network.

------
dec0dedab0de
does anyone remember the name of the alternate microblogging platform leo
laporte was using when this first came up ~ 10 years ago? I remember one
episode he just gave in and used twitter.

~~~
MarkSweep
Was it Pownce?

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pownce](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pownce)

~~~
tpowell
I think it was Pownce, as Kevin Rose co-founded it and he was associated with
Tech TV all the way back to 2002 (I think). Blast from the past...

------
nunez
This is so weird. There has to be more to the story than this. Hardly anyone
in TWiT's demographic would confuse it with or prefer it over Twitter.

------
simooooo
Leo laporte is not a cool guy.

~~~
el_benhameen
Care to elaborate? I never got too into his shows, but he never seemed
particularly uncool to me.

~~~
jccalhoun
I was a fan of Leo from back in the zdtv days but over the last year I've had
enough of him and don't watch anything he does any more. Reasons include his
constant use of "funny" indian and russian accents, constant on air sexual
"jokes" to and about female guests (he once admitted on air that Kate Botello
filed a complaint with HR about him back in the techtv days and Shannon Morse
and Sarah Lane have both made a #metoo post which many believe to refer at
least in part to Leo), and other things like his inability to be on time for
his own shows (he has even been late for his radio show more than once), total
lack of preparation for shows, spending tens of thousands on vacations while
complaining about how expensive it is to pay his employees, and turning on
former cohosts like Tom Merritt, Brian Brushwood, and Justin Young.

~~~
zmmmmm
I don't mind the rest of it so much but I have to agree about the sexual
joking around with his female cohosts. They are clearly uncomfortable, it's
palpable. And he KEEPS DOING IT. I would give him a break once, maybe twice,
but it is persistent in some cases to the point where it's borderline
harrasment - and that's what we can hear on air. Who knows what happens when
we are not listening.

It's a good reminder to those of us who assume otherwise that otherwise
perfectly intelligent, rational and seemingly polite and reasonable people can
be completely blind to this sort of thing.

------
rdl
If TWiT wins do they have to take over Twitter? Seems like a sneaky way for
Twitter to get a full-time CEO.

------
jaimehrubiks
I find it quit nonsense. And moreover, why don't they sue twitch then too in
the first place?

~~~
Grue3
I upvoted because Twitch is a really interesting case. The Levenshtein
distance between the trademarks is closer, and Twitch is pretty much entirely
focused on video, which makes it encroaching on TWiT's domain of business.

~~~
jjeaff
The CEO of twitch presumably didn't have a conversation with Laporte and
promise to never get into the video business.

~~~
dezren39
Yeah, I think the thing is though that you have to enforce trademarks early
and evenly. You can't enforce for one significant breach and not for another.
If you want to allow certain kinds of trademark use then you need to come to a
licensing agreement for those specific uses, either by allowing certain forms
of use or by allowing specific people to use it. Not a lawyer.

