NVK clearly indicates the trademark he is protecting is for "blockclock" by boosting the following post.
NVK implies he is using his trademark claim to protect his sales of his luxury-priced BLOCKCLOCK. This does not appear to be a valid a trademark or copyright claim.
View quoted note →
View quoted note →
This can be publically resolved with the simple gesture of publishing the actual takedown request sent to github. If NVK holds a trademark for BTCclock, then he has a positive legal right established in law by means of the monopoly of the use of force and people with guns and cages. If NVK only holds a trademark for BLOCKCLOCK, and he does not publish the takedown request, then we can assume he is standing behind the 5th amendment.
Brett Phillips
People really like to misunderstand the “ethos” of open source as some hippy utopia ideal. You clearly ripped off the block clock, which may not have been your intention but is clear nonetheless. Having legal action against you is purely the business protecting itself and if the situations/timelines were reversed, you’d be doing the same, or you’re dumb (clearly not given the proof of work).
Sounds like you started a competition and then got butt hurt when your competition fought back.
I use to love nostr and now it feels like I just come online to a bunch of whiney bitches complaining.
@nvk your clock is too expensive.
View quoted note →
