Readability Tries Again With Apple — Has The Subscription Policy Already Shifted?

A couple days ago, Readability was pissed off. In an open letter to Apple, they noted that the new subscription policy “smacks of greed”. And they threatened to abandon Apple’s platform in favor of the open web. This message resonated with many, as there’s a huge amount of unease about Apple’s new policy in the developer community. But now, just two days later, Readability has re-submitted their app to Apple for review. And apparently, a “love letter” to the company is forthcoming.

So why the change from war to peace? Has Apple’s policy already changed? Well, no — not yet, anyway. Readability’s Richard Ziade said his tweet was a “joke” and had this to say:

We did re-submit to Apple with an explanation of why we think they should approve Readability. We did not speak to anyone at Apple. We have no idea if they’ll approve it. We just explained ourselves as best we could through the appeal process.

So no good news yet, but there may be hope.

The reason for Readability initial outburst was because Apple rejected their app on the grounds that it didn’t use their in-app purchase system — the one that would require them to give 30 percent of their revenue to Apple. The company thought this was unfair and didn’t make a lot of sense because they think of themselves as a software as a service (SaaS) company that doesn’t actually sell content, but a service.

This matters because an email supposedly sent by Steve Jobs shortly after this incident claimed that the subscription rules were meant for “publishing apps, not SaaS apps”.

This is a bit of a gray area because Readability does sort of serve up content, but it’s not their content, it’s re-purposed content. Still, Apple taking 30 percent of their revenues would drastically alter their business model, and could have forced them to shut down, or simply not do an iPhone app.

How Apple approaches the app now post-Jobs comment will say a lot about their intentions for the policy going forward. As Ziade says, “stay tuned!”

View the original article here

Facebook Tries To Silence Lamebook: Removes Its Page, Blocks Links And Likes

Another chapter in the Facebook vs. Lamebook, errmm, book: the social networking giant has confirmed to us that it has moved to diligently block all outgoing links to Lamebook.com, shut down the two-person company’s Facebook Page (previously at facebook.com/thelamebook), and blocks visitors of the funny site from ‘liking’ posts to boot.

For your background: Facebook wants the Austin startup to quit using the name Lamebook, deeming its activities under that name an “improper attempt to build a brand that trades off Facebook’s popularity and fame”, and filed a trademark infringement lawsuit last week.

Lamebook had previously filed for declaratory judgment on its non-infringement of Facebook’s trademark, saying it operates a parody website and as such is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Bill McGeveran, law professor at the University of Minnesota, is just one of many to believe Lamebook actually has a pretty strong case:

Without some lenience for parody, comment and so-called “nominative use,” it would become impossible even to refer to an iconic brand without using its name, thus infringing on trademark rights. Fortunately, when faced with these disputes, most courts now realize their role as protectors of speech.

And even Facebook doesn’t even try to stop use of the company’s trademark in a newspaper story about the company, or go after sites that track it (or, for that matter, in the highly fictionalized and rather negative account of its founding in The Social Network.)

But if Facebook won’t be prevailing in court, that doesn’t mean they can’t just try and proverbially choke Lamebook to death.

They’ve most certainly dealt a major blow to the two-person startup by actively discouraging Facebook users from posting links to their website and refraining them from liking posts. Removing Lamebook’s fan page is one thing, but it’s safe to assume their funny site used to get a fair amount of traffic from the Facebook site that it’s no longer getting now.

For a tiny startup that relies on those pageviews for income – it’s an ad-supported website – Facebook’s move could cost them dearly.

Lamebook, meanwhile, is actively soliciting donations from visitors for its ‘Legal Fund’. The site also put up a notice on top of its website, which reads:

Well, Facebook didn’t like us sticking up for ourselves, so they shut down our Fan Page, are preventing any users from “liking” us, and won’t even let you share URLs with your friends if they point to Lamebook. In light of this, be sure to follow us on Twitter so you get updated with the latest and funniest of the lame!

I got in touch with Facebook, and they confirmed that they’re actively blocking Lamebook links and likes. Here’s their official statement on the matter:

Our terms prohibit posting of material or other activities on Facebook that infringe the rights of others. We reserve the right to pull down any content we believe is infringing. We also specifically prohibit use of any Facebook or confusingly similar marks (See SRR Sec. 5.1, 5.2 & 5.6 http://www.facebook.com/terms.php)

To be continued, no doubt.

View the original article here