I think a few people on that call thinking Apple can do no harm and is going to become the next Sony need to read their history books. This is like Apple circa 1979-1982. Apple is unbelievable at identifying a trend or a specific need at a specific time (and then milking it for all its worth), but I want to see them adapt to a changing market: it's not something they're particularly good at. - Mark Trapp

@Mark - All Apple needs to do is be better than the competition, and so far, they're doing really, really well. - Jason Kaneshiro

What's wrong with the iPhone? It's perfection from Cupertino! ..mixed with a lot of sarcasm from me. - Mike Lewis

Jason, sure, right now, they are. But the competition always catches up: it may take a few years, but in the past, they catch up to Apple and beat them at their own game. Historically, Apple tends to just fade in to irrelevancy when the competition catches up: I'd hope Apple learned from its past mistakes, but there's no evidence to indicate that it has (take a look at iTunes Store vs. Hulu/Netflix/Amazon, for example). - Mark Trapp

I recommend everyone on the call take 2 or 3 deep breaths and repeat after me, "It's just a phone... It's just a phone". - Bwana McCall

Apple doesn't make "it's just a ____" products! - Mark Trapp

I'm much more interested in hearing the discussion about AT&T's choices in the deal rather than Apple's. I mean, seriously, 2-year contracts for *every* phone sold, regardless? When was the last time you saw a phone that was unable to be purchased unactivated (albeit at some outrageous price)? I'm betting this position will change, but I really didn't want it to start that way. - Lee Adkins

@Mark. You're thinking of the old Apple. Since Steve Jobs returned in 1997, Apple has been very strategic about the markets it chooses to compete in. Remember when Palm's CEO said how hard it was to make a good smartphone and that Apple wasn't going to just walk in with one? Well, they did. And they're here for the long term. - Albert Willis

What's interesting is that the iPhone is apparently going to be offered as a Pay As You Go service in the UK http://www.psynixis.com/blog/2... This means that Apple has more bargaining power with the providers (I can't imagine this happening without the providers putting up a big fight - big contract + upfront payment + coolest phone ever makes a pretty big cash cow if you ask me) - Roberto Bonini

I do think Android is important, but I think Steve Gillmor overstated its potential impact on the market. Just like Mac OS X wasn't negatively affected by Linux (in fact, the existence of Linux has helped Apple), the iPhone won't be impacted by Android much. As we know, users sometimes cary two phones--the one their company forces them to use and the one they really like. Because of the deep enterprise support in the iPhone 2.0 software, these users will only need one phone--the iPhone. - Albert Willis

Not sure who was talking at the time, it was pretty bizarre to here people talk about Apple perfection. I had to quit listening then. - Chris Lamping via Alert Thingy

@Lee, I agree. It's sad that Apple has gone from actually constituting the terms with AT&T to bending over for them. I want to get mine unactivated so I can avoid the $45/month data plan (because apparently getting email makes me a business user). They went from iPhone I and "changing the cell phone business" to just becoming it. Way to go Steve, your phone is nice but you have accomplished nothing. - Chris Ridenour

Scobleizer is your legal name? - Kambiz Kamrani

Yes. - Robert Scoble

y couldn'tuse the name. - David A. Levine via twhirl

oh. you own the trademark then...got it - David A. Levine via twhirl

I own the defacto trademark on it. - Robert Scoble

Searched the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) for registered 'Scobleizer' trademarks and no hits found. By de facto, do you mean it is practically your trademark? - Kambiz Kamrani

Yes, that's what I mean by defacto trademark. No one else uses it, and if they tried to use it I'd go after them legally and win thanks to prior art that exists going back to 1991. - Robert Scoble

@Kambiz - in the US, much like copyright, trademark rights do not require registration. Rights are bestowed to the owner upon creation. Registration just makes it easier to prove when creation occurred. I doubt Robert has any shortage of public record to support his prior use. ;) - Anthony Citrano

This means that any one like me who creates a "arjunghosh" online (and i have ample records - just google it) but does not reside in US, can claim "arjunghosh" as my trademark under US law? - Arjun

And Robert, yes i do agree with you on the aspect that, like u have invested lot of time in the "creation" of my "arjunghosh" trademark....would definitely not like to lose it :) - Arjun

Arjun: if you can show you were the first to use a term, and are consistently using it and trying to defend it, I see no reason why it wouldn't become a trademark. That said, if some company wants to come along and do the legal work to trademark it, you'll need to step up your defense at that time. - Robert Scoble

Robert, it's rather simple: your prior use of "Scobleizer" does give you the right to register it as a legal trademark should you choose to do so down the road, but until you do, your imaginary nickname cannot (and certainly should not) be enforced. - Aviv via ffreader

Aviv: totally disagree. You don't need to register a trademark to defend it. And I will do so. Vigorously. - Robert Scoble

Robert, you may get away with it when dealing with a tiny web service such as Plurk, but I doubt Google's legal army, for example, would extend the same courtesy if a Google Health user chose to use your precious nickname before you had the chance.. ;) - Aviv via ffreader

I disagree. Big companies usually recognize this stuff before small ones do. Facebook kicks off people for impersonating other people, for instance. So do other companies who want a good repuation with people. Stealing identities and impersonating other people isn't behavior real social networks will want to have happen on their behalf. - Robert Scoble

All of this reminds me of that book "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...). IMHO it's not a matter of did Robert register Scobleizer as a trademark, or even does he have a de facto right to it. Robert uses it and we all know it. It's unique. And it's him. What is the motivation of the person who steals it? Undoubtedly, in some form or another, it's self-serving. If folks just "did the right thing".... - Joanmarie

Joanmarie: exactly. Anyone who registers Scobleizer is stealing MY identity that I've worked to build up over 16 years. - Robert Scoble

I totally agree with Joanmarie and Robert. Well what does a trademark in sense mean? It is to say that that logo or text or product is mine and it identifies with me. Cause instant recollection. Like the word "ford". It instantly recalls to our mind a brand of car. That branding also. So "Scobleizer" has been branded as online & offline, when ever we see those text, we associate them with Robert. At least I do. Same with my name. My friends find me online at various places using "arjunghosh" text. - Arjun

Hence I feel it gives us a inherent right over our created text or handle. I rest the case :) - Arjun

@acitrano @Scobelizer so basically if I ever want to invent something, doing so in the US as long as I have proof is suffice? - Joe Dawson

Joanmarie, I'm not suggesting ill-intentioned users on social networks should be able to get away with it and mess with one's online identity. I'm just arguing the facts and big picture implications here, because it seems to me Robert is claiming rights which he's not necessarily entitled to (definitely without proper arbitration and whatever due process applies), especially since he's had 16 years to spend $300 on a legal, valid, trademark. Also, unregistered trade names could possibly be enforced, especially when abuse can be identified and prior use established - but one requirement there is for the claimant to be an actual legal business with actual products and services. - Aviv via ffreader

and btw, while Robert may hold some rights for his nickname (at least the moral fair use and all that) - Plurk decided to ignore standard arbitration steps. That's really the issue here... but anyway, I've taken this too far I think. :) - Aviv via ffreader

Joe: prior art DOES stand up in court. Most of the time. Even against something that gets awarded a patent later. The trouble is proving you had the prior art. In this case, it's very easy for me to prove I had prior art on the use "Scobleizer." Which is why Aviv is wrong. - Robert Scoble

No Aviv, Plurk decided to follow its terms of service which states it does not allow its users to steal the identities of other people. - Robert Scoble

and to answer an earlier question - threads like this make FF a special place, if for nothing else but the entertainment value - Aviv via ffreader

Aviv: It must be fun being wrong, since you're totally in the wrong here, both morally and legally. And, yes, that IS entertaining. - Robert Scoble

It's not your name though is it?? Robert Scobleizer....? - Adrian Nadeau

Robert, Prior Art? So your nickname is now a patent? :) You're confusing Prior Use for the more serious stuff - Aviv via ffreader

what if someone registers scobleizer or scoble or robert scoble in other countries. say india ? with the .in domain - My Blog Posts

Adrian: no, it's my brand and mark. Thanks for playing this game. - Robert Scoble

...continued.. and run a scam in your name just like facebook.at scam http://myblogposts.com/new-sca... - My Blog Posts

My Blog Posts: I don't know what the rules are in India. But in America you can't register trademarks already in common use. Aviv: prior art also applies to trademarks. You should talk with a trademark lawyer. The first thing they do when you apply for one is look to see if anyone is already using that mark. - Robert Scoble

Prior Use entitles you to object someone else's trademark application, or (and you should do this now) use it to establish your right in your own application. Also, many of the common elements required to prove trade name abuse are missing here. Did the user steal your nickname in attempt to commit identity fraud? Did the user attempt to gain financially from his actions? - Aviv via ffreader

Attorneys, raise your hand! People who don't know what they're talking about, raise your foot! ;-) - Rubin

Robert, are you aware of the steps taken by Plurk to establish whether or not the user attempted to steal your identity or simply a planned parody, for example? - Aviv via ffreader

Rubin, I watch CSI re-runs between FF refreshes. Does that count? ;) - Aviv via ffreader

Aviv: in this case it doesn't matter. Pluck's terms of service (and common decency) don't allow users to impersonate other people. Using "Scobleizer" clearly would break that and would ONLY be used to impersonate someone else. - Robert Scoble

Robert, so you're saying ALL usernames currently being used on existing services should be RESERVED by new web2.0 upstarts? - Aviv via ffreader

What if the intended purpose was parody? Ever thought of that? - Aviv via ffreader

Aviv: Parody is not allowed as a defense for stealing someone's trademark and/or breaking Pluck's terms of service. Oh, and YES, that's exactly what should happen. It's why I'm a proponent of data and social graph portability. If I sign up on one service, why shouldn't I get the same name on every service after that? - Robert Scoble

I have to agree with @scobleizer on this one. Even if the name isn't officially trademarked, everyone in this part of geek culture knows who he is. Anyone else who registers for a new service using scobleizer is just trying to use that username to grab attention, like all the attention that @StephenColbert on twitter got a few weeks ago on digg. - Brandon Wood

Robert, of course not, because in that case it's not considered stealing. - Aviv via ffreader

Robert, also, you'd have a good case here if your nickname was Scobleizer(TM), but it's not. How about we arrange a conference call with a lawyer and split the bill? - Aviv via ffreader

Robert: Thanks for letting me play the game. So you have it Trademarked, etc? - Adrian Nadeau

I already have two lawyers. I don't need more. You're wrong, both legally and morally. You are defending stealing people's identies and trademarks. That makes you wrong. The fact that you repeat it over and over just makes you an asshole. Want to keep going? - Robert Scoble

Robert, I've said above, morally of course you are correct. I'm just arguing the process and social network username rights. - Aviv

I've been watching the thread (just watching) and sorry, I can't stand insults. - directeur

Translation: you want to be an asshole. I am done. You win, mostly because I've learned that arguing with assholes doesn't get me any further in life. You're wrong, both legally and morally. Seeya. - Robert Scoble

Directeur: when people steal identities and go after their marks professionally that's the ultimate insult. Hope you stand up next time you see someone doing that to someone else. - Robert Scoble

Robert, really no reason to start calling names here. All we're doing is have a discussion here, which you gladly entertained up until now. My apologies if you were offended, but I see nothing wrong in arguing the facts when the other side has got it all wrong. - Aviv

directeur: Yeah, seems some people get fired up pretty easy... over user names? Seems a little foolish to me, but maybe it's just me :-) Hopefully I don't get called any names... - Adrian Nadeau

directeur - especially coming from a guy whose bread and butter is online discussions and coordinating arguments on 10 threads simultaneously. It's unfortunate that Robert resorts to personal attacks when put on the spot - I suggested we take this up to a lawyer just for the heck of it, and that freaked him out. That's all there is to it. - Aviv

Don't you think Aviv is just playing a little Devil's Advocate here? This topic is something that's still kind of open. There's no clear cut rules on this subject. Could I legally tell someone not to use my name on a service... No, likely not, but I'm not 'well known'... At what point IS someone well known that a name should be reserved. I do agree with Robert that a single login/name for everywhere is needed. - Vince DeGeorge

Adrian, it went beyond "just usernames" some 35 comments ago :) We were really debating basic user rights, but for some reason Robert has taken it personally. Too much noise to handle? LOL - Aviv

Aviv: my social network IS my business. If you steal my name you are going directly after my ability to make money. It's like stealing a trademark like Toyota or Crest. It's wrong. Anyone who even tries to argue that stealing names should be OK is wrong. Anyone who says they have the law on their side is wrong. And when you do it over and over and over it makes you an asshole. - Robert Scoble

Adrian: my name is sold to sponsors and advertisers. It is NOT something "foolish." I have five sponsors now paying Fast Company a LOT of money because of the name I've built up online and elsewhere. Anyone who uses my name is stealing. Pure and simple. - Robert Scoble

Just to keep the record straight, My Blog Post and Robert, In India here the law is similar to the convention which is followed in all over the world. You register trademark and you have legal and moral right over it. Anyone can check http://www.ipindia.nic.in/ for that. - Arjun

Aviv: you don't get it, do you. It +IS+ personal when someone steals your identity and your name. - Robert Scoble

Robert: I completly understand that you might be angry for you name being stolen (and you ARE right!) but all I see here is people talking about how the laws are made by poeple (let's remind this) to be used by people. I didn't said anything else in the thread because I don't know a damn thing about laws and such issues like trademarks... That's it. - directeur

Robert is completely correct that a trademark doesn't need to be registered - the Lanham is very clear on that. He's adopted "Scobleizer" and used it, which is all that matters. There's no need to register, and no need to use "TM". And I really wish that some of the people here would actually bother to use to Google to find out the facts about trademarks before attacking Robert. - Ian Betteridge

Arjun: and, the law here is similar to that which is followed all over the world in both trademark and copyright. Them who use a mark first, have legal right to it. You can't come here and trademark "Scobleizer." I'll win that court case in a minute. - Robert Scoble

Robert, I'll repeat: morally, you are correct. I merely raised the concerned that it was in Plurk's best interest to keep a super-user happy and in the process ignoring the rights of a "regular user". I'm not saying the law is on the [potentially] abusive user's side because I agree with his actions - I'm saying so because *this is a fact*. If nothing more, the law is not necessarily on *your side* - hence the need to properly resolve the issue. - Aviv

Yeah, maybe I don't get it... but that's because my name is always available :-) Shouldn't there be a Trademark symbol on here: http://scobleizer.com/ ? I'm not joking, just curious. - Adrian Nadeau

Ian is right and backs up what my lawyers tell me. - Robert Scoble

Adrian: no, a trademark symbol is not required. See Ian's comment. Aviv: anyone who steals someone else's identity is NOT a "regular user" and you even trying to say that makes you an asshole. Again. And wrong. Again. And morally corrupt. Again. I'm off to bed. - Robert Scoble

Yeah, I just saw that comment by Ian (does that mean it's 100% right - sorry Ian). Anyway, I'm happy you have your name on Plurk. Again, great social skills calling everyone assholes. At the end of the day, who really cares. Have a nice sleep. - Adrian Nadeau

Robert, yes, if they actually bother to *go through the court system* and not muscle an up-and-coming social network. You may have a case, and you may not, but due process is mandatory. - Aviv

Adrian: As Robert says, no "TM" is required. The Wikipedia article on US trademark law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...) is a good place to start if you're interested. - Ian Betteridge

Adrian: great social skills getting involved in a fight and not seeing that Aviv IS an asshole for taking the side he is. When you are so CLEARLY in the wrong, you are an asshole. You're like someone who says a drunk driver isn't an asshole. Or a murderer isn't an asshole. Or someone who rips off old ladies isn't an asshole. When you are wrong you clearly ARE an asshole and here Aviv is clearly wrong. Now, which side are you on? Right or wrong? - Robert Scoble

Robert, for someone who sought user rights on Facebook, comment ownership, etc. - you're the last person I expected to ignore a very basic human right - the Presumption of innocence. I guess Data Portability is more important to you. Good night. - Aviv

>due process is mandatory. Huh? So, when someone rips off an old lady and she wants her purse back she has to go through due process? No, she gets her purse back and the thief gets thrown in jail. THAT is due process. You're wrong. Again. And morally corrupt. Give it up. - Robert Scoble

Robert, what's up with you? Are you opposing legal representation to criminals then? Of course a drunk driver is an asshole and should be sent to prison for 20 years, but I will never ever ignore basic human rights, which you clearly are. - Aviv

>the Presumption of innocence. Oh, Jimminy. This was a guy who was NOT innocent. Clearly any asshole can see that. You are digging yourself deeper in your morally corrupt hole. - Robert Scoble

Robert, and once again I extend my offer. I'll foot the bill and gladly participate in a conference call with you and a lawyer mutually agreed by us. Any time. - Aviv

>I will never ever ignore basic human rights, which you clearly are. You aren't a human rights advocate. You are an advocate for criminal behavior and we have all your messages above to see just how morally corrupt you are and how twisted you make your arguments. You are on the wrong side of this. Just say you are sorry and walk away. - Robert Scoble

Yeah, I thought you were calling me an asshole in the last comment. I think Aviv is just trying to argue their points. Not quite sure you can compare that to a Drunk Driver... - Adrian Nadeau

>I'll foot the bill and gladly participate in a conference call with you and a lawyer mutually agreed by us. I have two lawyers who are best friends of mine. One already told me you are full of shit. So, go pay for your own lawyer. Do a podcast with him or her. Go ahead. I'm waiting. - Robert Scoble

Robert, I know that. We've gone beyond the damn user a long time ago... Follow the conversation. We're discussing principles and legal rights at this point. Can we be adults and have an intelligent conversation? Or do you always have to be right? - Aviv

My 2cts: I learned a lot of things in this thread, seriously. If I was asked with a gun over my head from the begining of the story who's right Id' say that Scobleizer is not registred thus free to use... Should I have been called an asshole? I wonder... I didn't told a single word about trademarks because I don't know anything about these stuff, and I'm happy I have followed the thread and learnt something. Take it easy folks, everything's fading away... - directeur

I'm with Scoble on this one. If you're in social media enough to know the name, you know what you're doing. To take that name was a purposeful act. No excuse. I think it's equivalent to domain squatting with someone else's name; federal law allows the real person to retrieve the name. - Gregory Pittman

>I thought you were calling me an asshole in the last comment. If the shoe fits...does it? Are you on the side of right or wrong? If you are on Aviv's side, you are on the side of wrong and you are, indeed, an asshole. Sorry for being harsh, but life is harsh sometimes. That's why we have Valleywag. - Robert Scoble

>Or do you always have to be right? When it comes to stealing my name, absolutely. Thank you Gregory. - Robert Scoble

Gregory, actually there could be an excuse, and that is parody. Neither Robert or Plurk gave this any consideration. - Aviv

Aviv: Incidentally, parody is a not a "get out clause" for fair use of a trademark. It has to be clear that the parody is not from the person or organisation being parodied, otherwise there's potential for confusion. See http://www.usip.com/articles/p... for more details. Seriously, the law is completely on Robert's side here. - Ian Betteridge

Aviv: Parody is NOT an excuse for stealing a trademark. There might be a fair use provision there, but not to wholesale steal someone's identity, which this account did. See Ian's explanation. It's better than mine, but is correct. - Robert Scoble

Harsh... no worries, I can handle it (I've been called a lot worse than an asshole lol). I am not a lawyer so I don't know who is right and who is wrong. I am just surprised that it works that way (without an official trademark for a brand name). Like I said, I'm glad you got your name and are feeling good about that. I definitely agree that it's morally incorrect for the other person to take your name in the first place. There, that's my side :) - Adrian Nadeau

Adrian: in that case you are not an asshole. :-) It does make me tired, though, so will see ya later. - Robert Scoble

Aviv, are you seriously suggesting that it would have been better if Robert had sicced his lawyers on Plurk rather than just asking them himself? That's just absurd. As far as I can see, the law is completely on Robert's side, and he's handled this perfectly well. If I'd have been in the same situation, I'd have done the same. - Ian Betteridge

Ian, it may very well be, but the point is you have to take it to court to defend trademarks, especially such that were left unregistered for 16 years. - Aviv

Fun thread to read! Scoble's right. :) http://flickr.com/photos/kenle... - Kenneth LeFebvre

Scobleizer is a high profile name, and in the end probably should be handed back to Robert like it was. However, the whole process/idea of this happening will continue to raise a lot of questions and skepticism until sites find a way to better define the rules. How popular is popular enough to have a site like Plurk hand over your name? Do we know that Plurk (and others in the future) will do due diligence in getting the full story from both sides? What about scobelizer or scobeliser? Are those out? - Jeremy Felt

Aviv: no need to go to court unless someone is trying to steal your trademark and refuses to give it back when asked. - Robert Scoble

It's interesting because in the non-internet part of the world, people with the same names are all able to get bank accounts, utilities in the same city, cell phones, etc, etc... The need to keep things private and without any more identification than a name, email address, and a password is what's really made this a difficult issue to deal with. - Jeremy Felt

Jeremy: if a misspelling could be confused for the real trademark, it belongs to the person holding the trademark. I'm sure that if you tried to sell a soft drink spelled "Koke" that CocaCola would go after you because that clearly infringes on their trademark. At some point, though, you gotta decide how much money and mental energy you're gonna give to this. I personally don't care about misspellings. - Robert Scoble

@Nigel Cooke Nice question - 90 comments -not yours- and maybe you are sleeping now :D - Erhan Erdogan

Ok, to summarize the previous 95 comments: I've agreed all along that morally Robert is correct. I've argued the following: (a) lack of due process on Plurk's part, (b) Robert's presumptions with regards to his rights over his favorite nickname, and (c) Robert's ignorance when it comes to human rights, which is surprising considering his status as a defender of online user rights, data portability, etc. However, he disagrees w/ presumption of innocence, legal representation & fundamentals of the legal syste - Aviv

What about Intel processors 8086, 286, 386... there was an issue with trademarks on number's only names, right? - directeur

There's so many different perspectives that are rolling in my head that all have great point