Thread

1. adolph · 1790632803 · focus · HN ↗

   Clickbait. The website proprietor received a 3rd party trademark infringement complaint. If people in the company would prefer the map to be offline, they are taking a very roundabout way of accomplishing it.

     On Thursday, Michael was notified that Doppel, which describes itself as an “AI-native social engineering defense platfom,” filed a trademark infringement complaint regarding his site, claiming to be working on Flock’s behalf. Doppel says that the site is using the trademark “FLOCK SAFETY” without authorization, which “may cause customer confusion / harm.” Doppel requested the site be taken down.

   1. moate · 1790634733 · focus · HN ↗

      The fact that they can't go to the court and say "It pisses me off that this guy is doing what he's doing" and instead have to, ya know, try a case based on the actual laws that exist, seems to be confusing you about what "direct legal action" is.

      1. adolph · 1790635956 · focus · HN ↗

         The article's headline is the claim: "Flock Wants the Most Detailed Map of Its Surveillance Cameras Taken Offline"

         The basis for this is an undisclosed trademark letter from a 3rd party. The company in question may or may not want the map taken down. However, the article offers scant evidence for the headline claim. That is why it is clickbait. It promises something large and delivers something minimal.

         The security researcher in question has certainly made a splash however. Promising new levels of people mad at Flock is definitely the way to create some bona fides.

         1. muwtyhg · 1790636706 · focus · HN ↗

            Is it your opinion that the letter was likely not sent on behalf of Flock, and this Doppel company is lying about being affiliated with Flock?

            If so, what do they stand to gain by doing this? Is it even possible for a company to file a trademark letter on behalf of trademark owner without being affiliated?

            1. adolph · 1790650604 · focus · HN ↗

               I have no opinion one way or another. My first guess is that they have an IP protection firm that goes out and protects their trademarks like any normal company. The action is content neutral in the sense that it doesn't matter if it is the official Flock fan club or hate club. Is it more likely that some evildoer at Flock is twisting their mustache saying "I know how to eliminate this map site—the Streisand Effect!"

               The article makes a strong claim and then provides weak substance. An accurate headline is "Flock Map Website Sent a Trademark Notice."

               1. muwtyhg · 1790653020 · focus · HN ↗

                  Let's assume that Flock wants to take the website down. How do you think they should go about doing it?

                  If the site does get taken down due to this trademark dispute and Flock has the deniability of "well it was just the company we hire to do trademark protection, it's not our fault, we didn't do this intentionally" didn't they achieve their aims with plausible deniability that you are affording them here?

                  1. adolph · 1790702172 · focus · HN ↗

                     If the site has trademark issues, it is irrelevant if the company has the site's removal as a goal or not. The site could address the trademark issues by altering its infringing materials, or if deciding the claims are spurious, legally challenging or ignoring them, and move on. The site's security consultancy proprietor has more to gain by claiming it has forbidden data.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.