Interesting developments. Since I'm offline a lot, keep me informed, please. You're one I never miss reading. You're not only in my home feed but favorites as well in FF. - Molly

An inflammatory headline and a non-issue. It boils down to "Twitter may have to provide some financial compensation to Leo Laporte over Leo's ownership of the Twit trademark, if Twitter gets into producing some sort of TV show linked to Twitter." Leo OWNING Twitter doesn't come into it. - Wayne McDougall

Give 'em hell Leo IMHO - Matt Stevens

@wayne - see my response here - http://www.siliconangle.com/ver2... - Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins

"Twit" as a word, in the same sense as "Twitter," long precedes Leo Laporte's birth. All he's got is a mark relating to "TWiT," an acronym for something unlikely to be confused with Twitter. Laporte's got a "legitimate" claim, but not one likely to succeed. As soon as Twitter gets bought by Google or the like, their defense team will walk all over Laporte. - Maxwell Kennerly

aye, twit is a word that has existed in the UK for generations. It's a derogative term for someone who is foolish "don't do that you twit". - alphaxion

I think the context is what matters here - it is questionable whether or not Tiwtter and TWiT when strictly talked aobut in their current usages is confusing - some say yes, and others no. What's certain is that TWiT creates audio and video content - and Twitter is trying to encroach -nay build a BUSINESS around that idea. They're trying to make money using a name speicifically trademarked for use in that arena. People don't get TWiT and British twits confused, and people don't confuse status microblogging with what birds do. - Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins

Which part is highly unlikely? - Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins

remember that, on leo's trademark discussion, he wrote the following (quote): "Ev told me that when they were considering names for Twitter they knew about TWiT and decided it didn't matter. In their defense, they had no idea what or how big Twitter was to become. We talked about trademark early on and both agreed there was no conflict _as long as we were in different spaces_. And therein lies the rub. - Leo Laporte" - sɹǝɥʇɐǝɟʞɔɐןq

Mark - the part that's off is the "using a name specifically trademarked for use in that arena." The "arena" is right, but not the name -- Laporte has no claim to "Twitter" at all, and only a tenuous claim to "twit." He has a registered mark of "TWiT," an acronym which stands for something else. Indeed, another party could possibly use something like "Twit" in their TV show, as long as the context made clear it was separate. A wholly different non-acronym word is a different world altogether. - Maxwell Kennerly

@Maxwell - but examine what blackfeathers just said, in quote of Leo... and as Chris Yeh pointed out in a comment on the original post - a "moron in a hurry" would most likely confuse the two, particularly since they'd both be in the world of video together. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...) - Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins

The quote referenced by blackfeathers makes it sound like this is an "Apple Computer" / "Apple Records" situation in which a party using the exact same name in one arena jumped to another. But these names are actually quite far apart, and even if the Twitter folks thought this could be the case, that doesn't bind them. Here's an overview of the legal standard (http://bit.ly/AkPCg )(I've filed infringement cases). Fact is, Laporte runs "This Week in Tech," a news-commentary-advice show which he marks as "TWiT." "Twitter" is going to attach its name to some reality game show. These are different marks in different markets; the only real similarity is "marketing channels used," which is not enough by itself. - Maxwell Kennerly

@Maxwell, I'll admit I'm not a lawyer, nor have I filed infringement cases personally. As I stated in the comments of the original blog piece (http://www.siliconangle.com/ver2...), I've a great deal of experience in this sort of thing, going back to my teenage years (pasted below). - Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins

Actually, when I was a kid (about 13 or 14), I was a witness in a Federal trademark suit between an ISP called Neosoft and a software maker named NeoSoftware. The ISP was suing the software maker for rights to the name because they said it caused brand confusion. It turns out that the suit was dismissed by the judge because it was revealed during the case that the ISP was planning on moving into software sales. The point being, the burden here lies on the aggressor, the one trying to expand the scope of their brand, and the favor lies in the one who actually holds the trademark. Leo has a double-whammy here - he's already doing broadcast and video - something that Twitter wants to expand into. I think Leo here has a very good case should he want to pursue it, and he's either going to end up with points in the company or a percentage of all profits derived by the name. - Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins

The bottom line is that the stakes in the game, even when the names are *similar,* and not even the same, are the usage of the name. Rather than go to court, should Leo pursue this, Twitter will likely give Leo points in the name usage on broadcast ventures or points in the company in an out of court settlement rather than risk losing the name entirely. Leo, as has been discovered today by the amount of discussion around this, at least has a fighting chance of winning, or depending on who you ask, an iron-clad case. Twitter can't risk that, and would be well advised to do what they can to placate him. - Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins

I don't doubt your expertise -- e.g., you certainly know the market here far better than me -- I just wanted to point out that Laporte's far from a slamdunk, and has some serious obstacles in his path. Although a 'practical' burden is on Twitter as the encroacher, the legal burden would still be on Laporte as plaintiff. I presume money or shares will change hands, not least so Twitter can keep good relations with him and quiet the issue, but it won't be too much, more like costs-of-defense or so. Funny part is that it's likely neither of us will know the amount. :-) (And either way, thanks for the post, it's a very interesting issue.) - Maxwell Kennerly

Indeed - it's made for a nice conversational diversion this otherwise quiet Memorial Day (and kept my head out of boring FTC disclosure guidelines, where they otherwise would have been). I definitely agree with your final analysis here - it isn't clearcut on either side of the case, but I think there are definite merits to Leo's concerns. - Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins