

Techcrunch misleading about dangers of using "tweet" in names - amitu
http://www.fwd2tweet.com/18/

======
piers
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).

I think tweetknot got off lightly.

~~~
buugs
Agreed.

Not to justify anything but I really don't think they have any qualifications
for any type of graphical design, look at their logo its as if someone went
into mspaint with a mouse.

<http://tweetknot.com/images/logo4.gif>

------
ghshephard
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"

Two things came out of this story for me:

o Twitter is defending the trademark 'tweet'

o Twitter is defending their UI elements.

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.

I have no issues with TechCrunch protecting their source, and found the story
to be interesting.

~~~
tptacek
After Amit's post, I'm now left wondering if Twitter is actually protecting
their trademarks and design, or if they just targeted an egregious offender
and TechCrunch is trying to gin up a trend story. In other words, I currently
know nothing more about Twitter's policies and tactics than I did prior to the
TechCrunch story.

~~~
TrevorJ
That's what I got from it.

------
ispivey
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.

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.

~~~
miracle
Twitter did buy their images from a stock photo site and they didn't buy the
exclusive rights to the image. Everybody can buy the start site image and can
run his own site with the same image as background!

------
maukdaddy
Until people stop voting up techcrunch crap it won't stop.

~~~
jkincaid
We were protecting a source. End of story. The majority of the time tipsters
do not want to be named when there's a possibility they could be retaliated
against (as is the case on platforms like Twitter, iPhone, etc).

~~~
eli
What a cop out. This wasn't just a "source" who gave you a tip. The source
_was the story_.

Without identifying the source, you end up with a crappy one-sided post. And
without even bothering to critically examine the source's claim (that they
were being hassled specifically for using the word "tweet") you end up with a
post that isn't even accurate and that you've now had to add two update update
to bring it back in line with reality. End of story.

Having seen the site, I think it's obvious to everyone that using the word
"tweet" was the least of its IP transgressions.

I'm no big defended of "old media," but there's a reason you don't see
newspaper stories mysteriously missing the "Who?" of the story.

------
icey
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.

~~~
shabda
How is not mentioning both the primary source AND the site in question, not
stealing?

~~~
icey
Show me where I can see this story on Tweetknot's site, and then I'll agree
with you that it's stealing.

Otherwise, it's just a lack of attribution which is pretty normal when writing
stories.

~~~
michaelawill
You're missing the point entirely. The story wasn't STOLEN. It doesn't exist
at all.

TC wants a dramatic story. And the only way to make it credible is to hide
what they are talking about. Once the site in question was revealed, their
article became laughable.

------
kailashbadu
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.

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'.

In a way, Techcrunch is doing you a favor by maintaining anonymity.

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

------
jkincaid
This is just stupid. I'm usually fine with the TechCrunch criticism — frankly,
we deserve it sometimes. But this was about protecting a source.

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.

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:
<http://blog.twitter.com/2009/07/may-tweets-be-with-you.html>

~~~
mquander
The fact that Tweetknot is extremely derivative is crucial to the story.

If Twitter had pressured a more unique, independent product about using
"Tweet" or "Twitter", one might reasonably draw the conclusion that their goal
is really to protect the terms "Tweet" and "Twitter."

But when Twitter attacks Tweetknot through this charge, the most obvious
explanation is that they have a particular problem with Tweetknot's general
(in my opinion) rip-off of Twitter's aesthetic, and they're using "Tweet" as
an initial concrete and legally solid means by which to force Tweetknot to
stop copying Twitter. I do _not_ see any evidence that Twitter is going to
start going after people who are using their trademarks with unique and useful
products and services.

The blog post you linked delineates this policy from the horse's mouth. Your
original article, on the other hand, obscured Twitter's intentions in order to
present a more compelling and alarming story. In retrospect, given how
derivative Tweetknot was, Twitter's email looks absolutely reasonable and
makes their intentions totally clear.

(Reference: original TC story --
[http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/01/twitter-grows-
uncomfort...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/01/twitter-grows-
uncomfortable-with-the-use-of-the-word-tweet-in-applications/))

------
wizard_2
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're also trying to drum up traffic
for fwd2tweet.com, which is an interesting idea.

~~~
amitu
:-)

I considered blogging it, and well my blog runs on gitology
(<http://www.amitu.com/gitology/>) that I developed, required me to create a
new post, git commit it, git push it, the git pull it on my webserver.

fwd2tweet.com does help you write a quick "long" tweet as easily as writing a
mail to a friend.

------
bonsaitree
TechCrunch spews forth a non-story on a non-issue and folks act as if this
isn't business as usual. Next.

------
knightinblue
Amitu, is it possible that tweetknots is more than just your 'friends'?

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 _really_ unethical.

~~~
amitu
Nopes, just friends. Used to work with me in a company I worked two years ago.

------
kailashbadu
stealing? seriously? Just because they didn’t link to the site they were
reporting about? looks like someone is hopelessly desperate for publicity.

------
siong1987
The way I look at this story is: there are so many websites which have 'tweet'
in their domains on the web.

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.

------
gojomo
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.

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.

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!"

------
mingyeow
Twitter does not need to throw the book at them. It will _never_ take off

------
jrockway
_If you go see tweetknot.com, it resembles twitter a lot_

So, if you are a short messaging service, you can only use certain colors as
your background?

