Facebook Asserts Trademark On "Book" In New User Agreement 197
jbrodkin writes "Facebook is trying to expand its trademark rights over the word 'book' by adding the claim to a newly revised version of its 'Statement of Rights and Responsibilities,' the agreement all users implicitly consent to by using or accessing Facebook. The company has registered trademarks over its name and many variations of it, but not on the word 'book.' By inserting the trademark claim into the Facebook user agreement, the company hopes to bolster its standing in lawsuits against sites that incorporate the word 'book.'"
Book this! (Score:5, Insightful)
Another fine attempt by corporate America to stretch the law using stupidity.
How is this supposed to work (Score:5, Insightful)
What next? Are they going to force these sites owners to make a Facebook account and sign the new user agreement?
Re:woah (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's have another look at the quote in question:
They use the phrase "our copyrights or trademarks," and immediately after that phrase, they have a list of terms. They are saying that they own the "copyrights or trademarks" for or to those terms. They say that "You will not use" said terms unless your use of said terms agrees with them, either by way of their guidelines or their written permission. When you sign an agreement, you are agreeing to what that agreement says. By signing Facebook's new agreement, you are agreeing that "book" and "wall" are two of their "copyrights or trademarks."
Now for my disclaimer: I am also not a lawyer. But (to me) the way Facebook has worded the paragraph or section in question makes it clear that they're doing what the headline says they're doing.
Re:Book this! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you may be onto something deeper than you may expect. I am becoming to believe that this behavior is really a side effect of our runaway copyright/trademark/patent system, but also the nature of statutes.
No reasonable person would accept 'book' as a copyright/mark. The word as it stands alone is indicative of anything specific. But since the bounds on in this ears seem to be keep getting stretched and morphed, as well as less than stellar protections for individual/fair use, this is what to expect.
However, the pitfall of statute is that if you leave the language too broad you catch things you didn't intend, if you iterate every possibility you can think of there are always loopholes. There is a reason why many statutes are 'vague', and why we have a judicial system, but its a mess either way.
That being said, I really would like to see tome tightening up of both law and legal action on unethical/illegal clauses in user agreements. Perhaps with some penalties. If a clause is generally known prohibit legal action, and that action is a right that cannot be waived, then putting it in an agreement should carry a penalty for attempt to defraud.
Re:sign-away your legally-protected rights (Score:4, Insightful)
"You cannot sign-away your legally-protected rights."
Of course you can.
1. Sign those rights away.
2. Courts quit legally protecting them.
That's the way our Court System is going. It's not a justice system anymore.
Re:sign-away your legally-protected rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Under certain specific circumstances you can sign away legal rights. Like I'm free to talk about my employer all I want, but I am not free to divulge trade secrets and things like that. Here, I have signed away my freedom of speech in order to remain in good standing with the company and be a trusted employee. If I were not an employee, however, I'm completely free to divulge trade secrets if I haven't signed anything preventing me from doing so.
Also, you may be forced to give up certain rights in certain areas. Most bars don't allow weapons on premises, unless you're an active duty police officer, even though you might have a carry permit.
However, more and more EULAs are asking people to give up rights for no goddamn reason at all. Like the right to sue. I don't think this one would stand up in court if it came to blows. There's absolutely no reason someone would agree to give up their right to sue if they had any other choice. It's basically saying, "If we do something that causes you trouble, there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it except ask someone we're paying to ask us to reimburse you."