Last week Apple asked me to remove my app from the App Store. Now I know why.

[bcwood]

Last week, I received an email asking me to remove one of my applications from the App Store, saying that "they had been notified" that the name of my application was infringing on a registered trademark.

The name of my application?

Facetime. (http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/facetime.html)

Specifically, this is what the email said:

"We received notice from the trademark owner of FACETIME who has confirmed their ownership of registrations for FACETIME in the US and other countries.

Accordingly, please remove your application from the App Store and change the name of your application."

[gojomo]

Apple bought the trademark from FaceTime Communications, a company in instant-messaging automation and security. Apparently FaceTime Communications may be transitioning to a new brand soon:

http://www.facetime.com/LearnMore.aspx

[spicyj]

Well, to be fair, you were infringing on their trademark (or whoseever trademark it was previously).

[petercooper]

That depends on what their app did. From what I can make out with Google cache, it was a timer app.

The two trademarks Facetime Corp held (and which Apple has supposedly bought) orient around "computer software used for communicating over global computer networks using voice, text, fax, or e-mail."

A timer app called Facetime doesn't on the face of it appear to violate either of these other Facetime trademarks but.. trademarks are a wishy-washy world of legal wrangling, so it seems Apple's prepared to just push their weight around since they own the store and have the right to do so.

[Wazzup12]

User bcwood posted this in a neutral, matter of fact, way. Then I wonder why almost all the subsequent comments are so argumentative and biased. Chill, guys. Is being polite and cool not the thing to be on Internet?

[10ren]

HN comments are often argumentative. Commonly the top comment on a submission attacks an incidental error in it, ignoring the point of the submission. This may be partly due to startups being scrappy. Or maybe because it's on the internet. However on HN, at least it's usually done politely and civilly.

The other kind of useless (noise aot signal) comment is the meta-comment. Like yours (and now mine).

The recommended solution is to ignore what you don't like. By focusing on the good, the bad falls away - especially on a time-based "news" site like this one. Tomorrow, it will be gone. Good advice for startups (ignore your competition; get on with making something great). Life too.

Think of the interesting comments have left neglected and unloved because of the time you spent reading these annoying ones.

[bcwood]

Thank you. I'm actually not upset about the situation, I just found it an interesting enough situation to share.

[jmatt]

Ya this bothers me too. Though I'm guilty of it on occasion. I think it's the same reason that the famous "Someone is wrong on the internet" xkcd comic is so funny... [1] People have no etiquette and in many cases it's easier to bash and be argumentative on the internet because it's so impersonal. I can think of a number of people that post often here where I skim past their posts because they have built a bad reputation with me. I think the contrapositive also applies, there are some people that post enjoyable comments (even when I don't agree with what they are saying) and I make a point to read those. There was some discussion about a feature to make it easier to find people you find interesting... like maintain a list or something. But I don't think it's made it to the official features request page.

[1] http://xkcd.com/386/

[cromulent]

I can't see which comments were so argumentative and biased, and impolite. They all seem fairly normal to me. Is there any particular example you could point out (seriously)?

[fernando]

The bottom line is that you must take care of the IP aspects of your online business. We tend to forget such things as registering your copyright, your trademarks and maybe some patent (if you came up with some groundbreaking stuff, such as the "buy now" button).

I married a lawyer, so she handles this for me. That's a potently dangerous strategy, so if your risk aversion is higher, you may try reading this book instead: Legal Guide to Web & Software Development http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Guide-Software-Development-CD-Ro...

[antidaily]

Change your apps name. Not that big of a deal.

[icey]

(context - http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/11/steve-jobs-to-develop... )

[dpcan]

This is a classic "pick your battles" or "know when to fold'em" moments I think. This is technically "press" for your app, so hopefully some real good will come out of it when you come back to tell us the new name.

[edster]

Better yet, have the new name ready before getting this press! A huge opportunity has just passed by.

[mambodog]

Just out of interest, how long had your app been in the App Store?

[bcwood]

It had been on the App Store for about a year.

[fernando]

And what do we learn from this? Make sure you trademark your application's name soon. I learned it the hard way too, BTW...

[duck]

Yes, but I wonder how many people do this?

[cstuder]

Speaking of trademarks: Isn't 'iOS' owned by Cisco? Their Internet Operating System is running on their routers...

[cgomez]

Yep, and Apple licensed the rights to the name.

http://blogs.cisco.com/news/comments/cisco_and_apple_agreeme...

[warpwoof]

Makes sense. Apple didn't want to give away the name of one of their new products/features before launch, but needed your app gone before launch also.

[houseabsolute]

I am interested that they didn't just say, "We own the trademark Facetime, GTFO." Maybe they just have an automated system that does this kind of thing? I assume you will change the name to something else and everything will be OK, right?

[bcwood]

I would guess they didn't want to reveal anything about their plans before the announcment yesterday, which is why they were kind of vague about the whole thing. Yes, I'll just rename the app (not sure to what yet), and resubmit.

[Tichy]

Personally, I don't like the name anyway. I am not a face, and nor are my friends. That name is just a reminder of the hollowness of online communication.

What's next, bodytime? Will that be the currency of the future (I got actual bodytime with x)? Except bodytime is already used for the stupid demand of employers that their workers are physically present in the office.

[ErrantX]

Facetime is a widely adopted contraction of Face to Face time; which is in itself a widely accepted concept in the digital age (I find it mildly ironic that it has been adopted for this form of communication as well - because it defies the original meaning of the word :))

[ufomuffin]

I think you can find a better name that does more justice

[bcwood]

Agreed. I was actually never that excited about the name. I worked with a designer on the app, and the name was her idea.

[Maskawanian]

Eh, not surprised, you expect fair play from Apple?

[stevejohnson]

This is in fact fair play. Do you dispute that the trademark was taken and that the app name did not infringe?

[jaekwon]

The context is that Apple doesn't have the balls to say things as they are.

[cmelbye]

Yeah, those losers. They really should have just said "Hey, we're releasing a brand new feature called FaceTime and we need you to change your apps name. Oh yeah, and just don't tell anyone. Thanks!"