0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on January 07, 2015, 03:16:04 amQuote from: toast on January 07, 2015, 01:43:42 amBecause our marketing was shit under brian. Why do people keep asking?Next time email the author instead of posting here.Sent from my SCH-I535 using TapatalkBrian is gone. I would say the actual reason is more that we aren't paying anyone new to handle marketing & media.I've commented on the article but I think it's relevant to question and highlight this issue here too so that it can start to be addressed.We have Adam who is managing marketing and message and coordinated existing marketing efforts. This will take a few weeks to get up to speed. We don't have a PR or press person, though. We should come up with some standard pitches for people to be able to reach out on their own.
Quote from: toast on January 07, 2015, 01:43:42 amBecause our marketing was shit under brian. Why do people keep asking?Next time email the author instead of posting here.Sent from my SCH-I535 using TapatalkBrian is gone. I would say the actual reason is more that we aren't paying anyone new to handle marketing & media.I've commented on the article but I think it's relevant to question and highlight this issue here too so that it can start to be addressed.
Because our marketing was shit under brian. Why do people keep asking?Next time email the author instead of posting here.Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Next time email the author instead of posting here.
Quote from: onceuponatime on January 07, 2015, 01:23:08 amBitreserve Lawsuit Rumor Untruehttp://cointelegraph.com/news/113251/bitreserve-lawsuit-rumor-untrueHow does BitShares always get left out the articles...
Bitreserve Lawsuit Rumor Untruehttp://cointelegraph.com/news/113251/bitreserve-lawsuit-rumor-untrue
Quote from: Empirical1.1 on January 06, 2015, 09:41:34 amI think we need a pool of funds anyway so I suggested we could have 100% delegates who build up balances of BitGold and so increase the cap in the process.I am against delegates to fund it. I am tired of all the enforced dilution borne out of greed in which I have no say (seeing as my holdings are puny and my vote means nothing).If they want, the whales can pool their funds and do it.
I think we need a pool of funds anyway so I suggested we could have 100% delegates who build up balances of BitGold and so increase the cap in the process.
I see that BitGOLD is now 30th on asset list of CMC with a cap of $11.5k. Once this BitGOLD gains traction and becomes known we don't have to worry, I think they can't then trademark it either.
Quote from: Akado on January 05, 2015, 09:26:44 pmhttp://altcoinpress.com/2015/01/bitreserve-facing-potential-court-battle-over-alleged-trademark-theft/Bitreserve Facing Potential Court Battle Over Alleged Trademark TheftWell, that should now get us some name recognition Nice work Fire Brigade!
http://altcoinpress.com/2015/01/bitreserve-facing-potential-court-battle-over-alleged-trademark-theft/Bitreserve Facing Potential Court Battle Over Alleged Trademark Theft
Quote from: toast on December 31, 2014, 01:08:54 amAnother positive spin is that all these are not being trademarked: bitUSD (they want bitdollar), bitEUR (they want biteuro), bitWTI, bitCNY, etc. I would be content with taking the "forex / trading" versions and letting them have the "normal word" versions, if it came to that.The only collision we have is bitgold. There's lots of bitcoiners who would fight that one though.If the only collision is bitgold then I suppose it isn't really much of an issue .. and bitgold would likely be their weakest case. I'm not sure how trademarks are fought.. usually we read about patents.
Another positive spin is that all these are not being trademarked: bitUSD (they want bitdollar), bitEUR (they want biteuro), bitWTI, bitCNY, etc. I would be content with taking the "forex / trading" versions and letting them have the "normal word" versions, if it came to that.The only collision we have is bitgold. There's lots of bitcoiners who would fight that one though.
Quote from: toast on December 31, 2014, 12:13:59 amDo you think it is worthwhile to contact some bitcoin media outlets about this (coindesk et al)?It's worth a try. Our best approach is to try get more BitAssets on the front page of CMC & publicly own our brand in our market imo.
Do you think it is worthwhile to contact some bitcoin media outlets about this (coindesk et al)?
CEO of bitreserve, Halsey Minor .. owes over 10 million in taxes to California."As of 2012 the state of California listed Halsey as the #1 on the list of the state's Top 250 Delinquent Taxpayers"I would not risk trusting this guy as the counterparty for my investment with this kind of liability hanging over his head.
Here's the wikipedia on the CEO of bitreserve, Halsey Minorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halsey_MinorApparently he's into filing lawsuits. He currently has a number of outstanding cases as well as cases against him. Also, he filed chapter 7 bankruptcy less than 2 years ago (May 2013).... looks like he supposedly owes over 10 million in taxes to California."As of 2012 the state of California listed Halsey as the #1 on the list of the state's Top 250 Delinquent Taxpayers"I would not risk trusting this guy as the counterparty for my investment with this kind of liability hanging over his head.
But of the £6 million they raised on crowdcube, £5.8 million was given by one investor it seems.So it's more like just a PR stunt to say they're including many small investors.
Obviously if we failed to trademark BitAssets when they were in fact trademarkable that would be a sizeable mistake on our part.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/113217/bitreserve-raises-us95-million-in-second-largest-crowdfunding-round-in-the-digital-currency-sector
Bitreserve's President of Global Strategy and Markets, responded that although the Bitreserve team “[doesn’t] need the crowd to raise money,” they wanted to “respect small investors.” Parsa drew a comparison between crowdfunding's disruption to normal venture capital, and Bitreserve's aimed disruption of international monetary transfer. He stated that they aim to support “innovation with social benefit wherever we can..
Quote from: sschechter on December 30, 2014, 05:14:31 pmQuote from: NewMine on December 30, 2014, 05:09:17 pmQuote from: WildWex on December 30, 2014, 04:50:14 pmHi all - I've asked my IP attorney to provide further detail which I'll share but essentially and to refer to an authoritative source, refer to the first 3 paragraphs here:http://www.fr.com/prior-user-vs-federal-registrant--whose-mark-is-it-anyway1/Note, when we filed for BitShares last year, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) used our own postings (on domains that we owned no less!) to initially make reference that the term was already out for public use and could not be trademarked. We pursued that successfully and yet they added that the term was 'too descriptive'.For the uninitiated "Too Descriptive" means:A trademark that is overly descriptive and lacks secondary meaning is considered to be invalid. A mark is descriptive if it conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods or services. This is because it would be unfair to allow a firm to prevent its competitors from informing consumers about the attributes of the competitor's brands by obtaining sole trademark rights to the descriptive terms. This also ensures the freedom of the public to use the language involved, without the possibility of infringement suits by the registrant against others who use the mark to advertise or describe their own products or services. If a firm does use a generic or descriptive term as a trademark, this makes it difficult for competitors to market their own brands of the same product or service. Could you have added a word like blockchain or platform or wallet after Bitshares and got one? Or Bitshares BitUSD, and Bitshares BitGold....... I bet BitReserve will.Who are they going to sue?every merchant who will use it and place the name on their webside.
Quote from: NewMine on December 30, 2014, 05:09:17 pmQuote from: WildWex on December 30, 2014, 04:50:14 pmHi all - I've asked my IP attorney to provide further detail which I'll share but essentially and to refer to an authoritative source, refer to the first 3 paragraphs here:http://www.fr.com/prior-user-vs-federal-registrant--whose-mark-is-it-anyway1/Note, when we filed for BitShares last year, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) used our own postings (on domains that we owned no less!) to initially make reference that the term was already out for public use and could not be trademarked. We pursued that successfully and yet they added that the term was 'too descriptive'.For the uninitiated "Too Descriptive" means:A trademark that is overly descriptive and lacks secondary meaning is considered to be invalid. A mark is descriptive if it conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods or services. This is because it would be unfair to allow a firm to prevent its competitors from informing consumers about the attributes of the competitor's brands by obtaining sole trademark rights to the descriptive terms. This also ensures the freedom of the public to use the language involved, without the possibility of infringement suits by the registrant against others who use the mark to advertise or describe their own products or services. If a firm does use a generic or descriptive term as a trademark, this makes it difficult for competitors to market their own brands of the same product or service. Could you have added a word like blockchain or platform or wallet after Bitshares and got one? Or Bitshares BitUSD, and Bitshares BitGold....... I bet BitReserve will.Who are they going to sue?
Quote from: WildWex on December 30, 2014, 04:50:14 pmHi all - I've asked my IP attorney to provide further detail which I'll share but essentially and to refer to an authoritative source, refer to the first 3 paragraphs here:http://www.fr.com/prior-user-vs-federal-registrant--whose-mark-is-it-anyway1/Note, when we filed for BitShares last year, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) used our own postings (on domains that we owned no less!) to initially make reference that the term was already out for public use and could not be trademarked. We pursued that successfully and yet they added that the term was 'too descriptive'.For the uninitiated "Too Descriptive" means:A trademark that is overly descriptive and lacks secondary meaning is considered to be invalid. A mark is descriptive if it conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods or services. This is because it would be unfair to allow a firm to prevent its competitors from informing consumers about the attributes of the competitor's brands by obtaining sole trademark rights to the descriptive terms. This also ensures the freedom of the public to use the language involved, without the possibility of infringement suits by the registrant against others who use the mark to advertise or describe their own products or services. If a firm does use a generic or descriptive term as a trademark, this makes it difficult for competitors to market their own brands of the same product or service. Could you have added a word like blockchain or platform or wallet after Bitshares and got one? Or Bitshares BitUSD, and Bitshares BitGold....... I bet BitReserve will.
Hi all - I've asked my IP attorney to provide further detail which I'll share but essentially and to refer to an authoritative source, refer to the first 3 paragraphs here:http://www.fr.com/prior-user-vs-federal-registrant--whose-mark-is-it-anyway1/Note, when we filed for BitShares last year, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) used our own postings (on domains that we owned no less!) to initially make reference that the term was already out for public use and could not be trademarked. We pursued that successfully and yet they added that the term was 'too descriptive'.For the uninitiated "Too Descriptive" means:A trademark that is overly descriptive and lacks secondary meaning is considered to be invalid. A mark is descriptive if it conveys an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods or services. This is because it would be unfair to allow a firm to prevent its competitors from informing consumers about the attributes of the competitor's brands by obtaining sole trademark rights to the descriptive terms. This also ensures the freedom of the public to use the language involved, without the possibility of infringement suits by the registrant against others who use the mark to advertise or describe their own products or services. If a firm does use a generic or descriptive term as a trademark, this makes it difficult for competitors to market their own brands of the same product or service.
Well we have to go with trademark trolls in this case but I like this a lot. It definitely deserves a /r/bitcoin post too I would think. Something fairly brief and keeping to facts. Does the guy behind this service have a history of lawsuits by any chance ?Honestly what is this service from the perspective of hardcore BTC fans? It is basically a gateway that ENCOURAGES people to leave their BTC position instead of buying into BTC.
Looking at the BitReserve website again today (https://bitreserve.org/en/about-us/trademark-notice), and it looks like they're going on a trademark spree for all Bit* terms:•BITRESERVE•The BITRESERVE logo•RESERVECHAIN•RESERVELEDGER•bitdollar•bityuan•bityen•biteuro•bitpound•bitgold•bitsilver•bitpalladium•bitelectrum•bitmxpeso•bitphpeso•bitpesoA Google search brings up trademark applications for each of these, filed 2014-12-02 (http://trademarks.justia.com/864/68/bitdollar-86468934.html, http://trademarks.justia.com/864/68/biteuro-86468938.html, http://trademarks.justia.com/864/68/bitgold-86468612.html, etc). It looks like none have been reviewed though (and thus they haven't been granted the trademarks yet, I'd presume), as the status shows "New Application - Record Initialized Not Assigned To Examiner" for each.An interesting trademark application for bitdollar appears to have been made on 2014-03-13, and was apparently granted on 2014-12-12 with the status "Publication/Issue Review Complete" (http://trademarks.justia.com/862/20/bitdollar-86220809.html)Are we really gonna let a centralized POS company backed by the scam artist Halsey Minor steal our limelight? Do we have any options to debate these trademarks with the USPTO (as our product was first to market to something?)Oh, and BitReserve apparently also just completed its second crowdfunding round, bringing its total raised to $14 million now and becoming the second best crowdfunded digital currency project after Ethereum's $18 million (http://cointelegraph.com/news/113217/bitreserve-raises-us95-million-in-second-largest-crowdfunding-round-in-the-digital-currency-sector).I feel a war brewing...
this summer
Have any of you considered BitReserve's primary role might be:AltCoin killer, targeting bitsharesA banker's replacement for USD
Quote from: toast on December 30, 2014, 04:35:52 pmWe didn't register bitshares either, it was not granted because it is "too descriptive". We're getting a comment from greg's IP lawyer to see what actions we can / should do.Too disruptive? Yet BitReserve successfully registered BitGold and BitSilver
We didn't register bitshares either, it was not granted because it is "too descriptive". We're getting a comment from greg's IP lawyer to see what actions we can / should do.
Quote from: mike623317 on December 30, 2014, 04:49:17 pmQuote from: toast on December 30, 2014, 04:35:52 pmWe didn't register bitshares either, it was not granted because it is "too descriptive". We're getting a comment from greg's IP lawyer to see what actions we can / should do.Too disruptive? Yet BitReserve successfully registered BitGold and BitSilverHang on, looks like we did register it. Owned by: Invictus Innovations, Inc. - Serial Number: 86156522
Quote from: Rune on December 30, 2014, 04:21:55 pm A trademark only makes sense if you can enforce it, and you cannot force a blockchain to do anything, so trademarking these terms is utterly pointless.Thats a good point Rune. Even though the technology might be better it ticks me off a little to see someone else essentially try to own the phrase BitUSD. Did we not bother to try and register BitUSD for a reason when we registered BitShares? Anyone know.
A trademark only makes sense if you can enforce it, and you cannot force a blockchain to do anything, so trademarking these terms is utterly pointless.
Quote from: NewMine on December 30, 2014, 04:12:07 pmQuote from: vlight on December 30, 2014, 03:35:45 pmHow long BitReserve has been using these asset names? Just wondering if BitShares was the first to use it.Bitdollar goes back to April 2011. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=20031.0BitGold goes back to Nick Szabo and 1998. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_SzaboBitShares was not the first to "use" any of these terms. BitShares is just the most successful so far. Looks like BitReserve will take it to a higher level.You don't honestly think that trademarking something means "taking it to a higher level". Whoever "wins" these words, is whichever system is most widely used. A trademark only makes sense if you can enforce it, and you cannot force a blockchain to do anything, so trademarking these terms is utterly pointless.
Quote from: vlight on December 30, 2014, 03:35:45 pmHow long BitReserve has been using these asset names? Just wondering if BitShares was the first to use it.Bitdollar goes back to April 2011. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=20031.0BitGold goes back to Nick Szabo and 1998. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_SzaboBitShares was not the first to "use" any of these terms. BitShares is just the most successful so far. Looks like BitReserve will take it to a higher level.
How long BitReserve has been using these asset names? Just wondering if BitShares was the first to use it.
If they try to enforce their trademarks against us, it will backfire and give us publicity. I say bring it on. You cant enforce trademarks against a blockchain.