Yet Zuck & company will also put in for a trade on the word Meta that's a given.Since the company doesn't own the trademark yet they prob have an uphill battle, I doubt facebook will pay them $20 million for a name that's essentially in legal limbo. I could also see facebook arguing that meta is a common word/phrase and can't be trademarked.
There's the problem - trying to understand Zuck and FB as "people".I don't know what to say. My first thought was, "Why wouldn't they secure the name first?"
And then, "Why am I even trying to understand these people?!"
This is a strange story.
If the name matters that much to Zuckerberg, then it's not being "greedy". Brand names are valuable and Facebook/Meta has plenty of money to spend on the name if they want it bad enough. I'd say, start bidding at $20M and see where it goes from there.I used to listen to his podcast every week, Dopetek Podcast. I didn't realize that he was the one that started Meta PC's. He's also one of the guys that started Player One Coffee. $20mil will do ALOT to grow the business, no need to get extremely greedy and force Zuck's hand to do something legally underhanded to get what he wants, just price it for a decent amount, get paid and everyone be happy.
In English, it's not even a word, it's a prefix. For example, "metaphor", or, "metaphysics".Meta can mean completly different things in different languages. In mine it means "target" so...there sure are ways around the "Meta" name...
Right, and in your example, "meta", is still performs as a prefix, just not a joined prefix. (but technically it,s being used as an adjective).In games like, say, Path of Exile, "meta" is used in the sentance as "meta build" as in "very popular and effective at the moment"... I guess PC dude was alluding to something within those lines of thinking, since he is "building" gaming PCs
I don't think he is going to get anything further from this bit of free exposure.
You can't copyright a word, period. If fact, if Facebook is going to change their name to "Meta", I imagine it will have to be as a logotype. "So, "Meta", needs to be accompanied by color, typeface and size, along with possible integration into an overall integration into a graphic design.Yeah, good luck with that. There are multiple trademarks for common words. Apple Computers has trademarked "Apple." So has Scholastic, and the Apple Rubber Company. Although both Metas are technology-based, I could easily see Meta Computers being distinctly different from what Meta (Facebook) is doing. Now, he could try selling a web domain, but I don't think Zuck is going to give him a penny, and be just fine.
You can't copyright a single word, that is true. But you can trademark a word, like Apple. You can also trademark things like Uber, which is analogous to Meta in that Uber is more of a prefix (though it's become a bit of a word), he was an Uber-nerd.You can't copyright a word, period. snip
BTW, before the hipsters got a hold of it, "meta wasn't even a word. It was, more or less, just a prefix.
According to the US Trademark Office:It has to be a complete solution, word+graphics design+industry. Just "Apple" can't be protected otherwise anyone growing apples would have to pay royalties to Apple.
The wordmark in Uber's new logo uses a custom typeface called “Uber Move.” It's supposed to echo similar sans serif fonts used for transportation signage around the world, according to AdWeek, and also saves the company from paying licensing fees.You can't copyright a single word, that is true. But you can trademark a word, like Apple. You can also trademark things like Uber, which is analogous to Meta in that Uber is more of a prefix (though it's become a bit of a word), he was an Uber-nerd.
Of course you can sell apples under name "apple" everyone does it. You can't make an electronic or software and name it Apple, set apple as a logo and sell it.According to the US Trademark Office:
"A trademark can be any word, phrase, symbol, design, or a combination of these things that identifies your goods or services. It’s how customers recognize you in the marketplace and distinguish you from your competitors."
Growing apples is one thing. But, you could not be an apple grower selling products under the name Apple. Apple will argue that any use of the Apple name, computers or otherwise, implies some relationship between the 2 companies and would diminish the value of the Apple brand.
I think the issue for the guy in Phoenix will be that he hasn't actually used that trademark extensively and therefore he may not have a valid claim to the name. Or maybe, Facebook will just throw him a bone and offer to pay him something less in an NDA protected agreement. I'm sure he'd sell for a million.
You can sell apples as apples, but if you started an apple selling company called Apple, you would likely get a letter from some lawyers in Cupertino. Companies have to defend their trademarks across all industries or they stand to lose them when someone in the same or similar business comes along and uses the name.Of course you can sell apples under name "apple" everyone does it. You can't make an electronic or software and name it Apple, set apple as a logo and sell it.
When applying for trademark, you need to do "how customers recognize you in the marketplace and distinguish you from your competitors" this part. It's very important.
edit: anyway, to summarize, again, dude with his "Meta" brand building (assembling) PCs has nothing to do with Facebook, VR, augmented reality, and such, so no one is in breach, they are not competing in the same market and he can kiss 20 million good bye.
What exactly are yuo and the PC "builder" missing? Oh wait, it's the infinity symbol in front of the word "Meta".In the case of the PC seller there is more of a connection to FB than an apple grower has to Apple Computers.