Seems OK with me. I read it all the way to the end. Reput. Rhymes with Kaput.
Interactive Lard. Remember the name: one day they will be huge. This is the rock band name that Dabbsy Lite v1.2 came up with as a result of a random word search through a dictionary. I wouldn’t normally recommend this approach: look what flicking randomly through a discarded Atlas on Wimbledon Common did for Bungo Womble. …
This post has been deleted by its author
The first paragraph has nothing to do with the rest of the article. Its a friendly intro.
As usual when reading a Reg article, and most things, it helps if you get to the end and actually understand the English language past the level of a 4 year old. Reading comprehension 4 teh win.
Reput isn't breaking any law. In fact, I believe Reput honestly expects the app to be used responsibly. I just happen to think they are mistaken. As soon as one user conveys an opinion to another about a third party's perceived reputation, a libel is all but guaranteed to take place. When the UK construction industry was found to be sharing opinionated and unchallenged reputation data about potential employees, there was a scandal. Reput, however, reckons users will only say nice things about other people.
Would you be so kind to mention under which British law could Reput be found guilty?
If Reput is just a meeting point for private and cyphered communications among users and it doesn't get their users contact's data in any moment, it doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that...
Maybe you were referring to users who misuse the network. Is that right?
I'm not a lawyer, but an app whose apparent purpose to "an idiot in a hurry" may to be incitement and facilitation of the publication of possibly libellous comment might well be risky from a legal standpoint.
The "red" honesty bar in the screenshot is particularly interesting. *innocent face*
A) I believe such names are driven more by the desire for copyright/trademark than a flighty desire to appear 'creative'. Though of course it would then fall to the more...erm...esoteric types in the marketing department to come up with the new name.
B) Does the CEO rate high for amusing and low for intelligence? Have they spoken with a lawyer about how a low intelligence rating might affect their future senior executive employment opportunities? On second thought, based on many real world data points, they'll probably have no problem getting another corner office.
We need an app which will rate apps based on their usefulness and worth, if I make the app and give this app a 0 would they sue me for defamation? I bet they would!
Oh wait I know my mistake, I'll let all you vote instead, there sorted.
I even have a catchy name: "AppGreat or AppRape?" We can even simplfy it to a big RED Rape button and a big GREEN Great button, this way the people who actually care about this junk will also be able to use it (provided they are shown first of course, one thing at a time).
Good Riddance Reput!
Anytime you have an executive using the 'people are allowed to (x)' defense, call the guys in legal and see if that company has anything you want. If they do then it is yours for a song. The lawyers will charge more for looking into the company than it'll cost you to buy it after the CEO spends all their money on libel suits to 'protect the brand value'. It's great fun, because you know 'people are allowed to kick the living shit out of your company if you come off like pillowcase full of cottage cheese'.
Somebody should really help that guy. Ha! No, even better we can put him and that O'Leary fellow from Ryanair in a cage and make them fight! Pillowcase's share of the purse can go to hiring somebody to talk to the media! Everybody wins!
But seriously, if somebody tells you that your company name, product names and logo are crucial to your success fire them immediately. That person is detrimental to your success. It doesn't matter what you call your company if your offerings are right.
That's doubly true if you're hoping to be acquired one day. If your company presence is larger than your products it costs just shedloads of money to make people remember that (xcorp) isn't xcorp anymore. For example, unless you're rather young, ThinkPad still means IBM. Send Lenovo an email and ask for quotes on their IBM laptops. You'll be able to hear the screams of rage from wherever you are. Waaay to many people think Lenovo is an IBM reseller and it's hilarious. Customer confusion is not always directly detrimental, but it is always expensive to correct.
Names, tag lines and logos are like flash buildings and expensive office furniture. They are accessories that you upgrade when you simply don't know what to spend your excess cash on. They add absolutely nothing to the company and it is entirely possible that your new $2M logo will look like Lisa Simpson giving head, or just a giant cock, and I absolutely promise that it won't look like a giant cock until they hoist the 45' tall giant cock onto the side of your building that overlooks a children's hospital a home for battered women. It's great because you can actually see the sign people's trucks transforming into Lamborghini's as they try to fit you in to their very, very busy schedule and since you no longer want the white Christmas tree on the tip it's going to be $35k more for breach of contract.
The following is not hyperbole or humorous anecdote. I don't know how many don't make it past our screener, but I end up looking at 10 or so funding request proposals a month and fully half of them, at least, have branding and logo development as a priority. If they have an interesting idea I might still call them, but I'm going to beat them over the head, repeatedly with the branding garbage.
It is a very interesting study to see what people think is important for their business. It is a reasonably impressive feat for a startup to even get a private meeting with a potential investment group, (try it) and you'd think they would have their ducks in a row, but most of the time they really don't. This is their big chance and if they can make it work they'll never again have trouble raising money. But on their priority list they've got 'branding' bullshit for $100k+ and 350 pages into their plan they tell you they won't need to buy software because they downloaded cracked versions from some P2P site and I shit you not, they'll have the fucking publisher of the software they've snagged as a potential partner or buyer... Really!
The moral of this story is that nobody, absolutely nobody gives any fucks about what you name your company. Nobody. Just pick something and move on. What does the logo of the mfg of your house paint look like? Or your hardwood floor mfg? How about the measuring cups in your kitchen or your smoke detectors or the people who made the balls for mice or the trucks on the train car you rode in today? The list is endless, but what is fact is that in a modern urban setting there are ~200 companies in your field of view at all times, and nobody knows what their logos look like except them.
Tech is famous for big logo spend and 'branding', but ask yourself why. All the big names have simple, boring logos and names because if it gets just .0000098 too fancy you've got to have 7,000 versions of it to suit any setting and the Backend to organize it all. If you're a startup you can earn major points with a name and logo that aren't actually offensive and done in-house; it's an easy score. If it looks like you spent money on it that's going to be bad. It's kind of a joke, but companies than can actually afford 'branding' and fancy office furniture also don't have to give VC's tours of the facilities.
I hope I don't sound too much like a "typical American" here but... why should a US company be all that concerned with British law? It's pretty hard to obey the laws of every country the internet touches. We do of course have libel laws here too, but I understand they're significantly more favorable to the defense.
"I hope I don't sound too much like a "typical American" here but... why should a US company be all that concerned with British law?"
They don't need to be, provided of course they can prove that the content on their site is not accessible in the UK, to anyone who may be enquiring about a British person or anyone resident in the UK (and/or associated territories), and does not in any way include, cover, mention or even imply a mention of a British citizen.
Alternatively, if you don't like that: They don't need to be, provided of course no US laws (including by extension patents, spying with or without warrants, etc) apply outside the United States or to anyone not a citizen (natural or corporate) of the United States.
You have to at least pay lip service and spend some money on compliance with the laws in countries you want to expand into. Here's a short list of why:
- That first 'W' in www means that it is extremely rare to have a business that doesn't have dreams of global domination. Retail doesn't translate well in other countries and some things are very culture specific, but, by and large, most businesses want to go international. They've been promising it since their first round of funding.
- You've got to at least appear to be trying to meet those promises and if you jump on today's 'hot button' issue you get carried along for free by all the media around that issue.
- Without a doubt, the very best way for a US company to smooth revenue and play hide the revenue with tax agencies is to go into Europe. Tax shenanigans aside, going into Europe offers a variety of new revenue generators for minimal cost. If you've got sustained revenue growth, but less than ideal profits, you really bump everything up with a European presence. A lot of it deals with the way you move funds around inside a company, but mostly it's just cheap to go to Europe so everybody wants to get in there.
Retail and Vegemite type cultural oddities excluded, you can aggressively move into every significant market inside Europe for less than it costs to take California. So, if you can tread water here, you can generate more than enough revenue to go to Europe for pure profit. Even with all the consumer protection stuff that kills their own companies, it's still easy and cheap to expand into Europe.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021