Interesting, hope you get this sorted out. I really like this kind of projects.
Since I am using the seedsigner I have heard also the fud around it from Coinkite, although not enough time to see everything.
Capitalism is about competition, so for me it is fair game.
However I can understand that he could get pissed off if you reversed engineered his clock and didn't put credits. But according to you this is not the case, so I would just write "inspired from Coinkite" and put a link. Sometimes I do the same for algorithms, if I had troubles and found a good algorithm from someone else I put a link to Stack overflow in a comment haha.
In the Bitcoin community I have heard also unjustified fud about Ledger too, sometimes Trezor also, and seedsigner as written above, so I guess it may be a problem with how people react on social networks. In my case, I just ignore it. In this regard, Blockstream is a very good company, they produce hardware and tell us how to replicate it and don't get upset about it. It is purely open source.
All I can say - is that all our systems are broken and need to be re-engineered....I find it hard to believe that we haven't figured that out yet... With that in mind - you may find my perspective of base, and I welcome any and all feedback :)
Bitcoin is blowing our minds each and every day as it pertains to how we exchange value between each other! It seems like some of us haven't figured this out yet and/or (probably more likely I am just a dumby and confused!)
It seems to me that Coinkite "the business" is conducting a "Bitcoin" business in the FIAT world, using some of the FIAT systems, built upon the faulty FIAT code as many "Bitcoin" companies continue to do.... "Trademarks" - seems like laws/rules whatever put in place by people/businesses/organizations attempting to control what other people do?
It's kind of sad really - so many "Bitcoin" companies seem to make really bad mistakes when they come across these "lines of code" that drive the systems in the FIAT world and they end up getting WRECKED.... by bad press or at least face a severe backlash from the community...
Now I do not know everything there is to know about Bitcoin, in fact I would consider myself to be pretty dumb...but I am pretty sure about a few things and one of them is.....
Bitcoin doesn't care - One of its primary uses is for the honest and open exchange of value amongst all its users and when our "new Bitcoin" businesses run into "old FIAT" artifacts - they have to stop and ask themselves....WWSD? What would Satoshi do? ...
or What path is most aligned with a system built upon Bitcoin and pick that path. Even though the "software" or "system" isn't built yet or hasn't fully been Bitcoinized....we have to run our businesses better...They don't just magically operate better simply because you accept Bitcoin as payment or HODL Bitcoin in your reserves.... We the people...though soon the AI will...operate this system and we just have to remember that so many "legacy systems" are written on bad code - that we have to change.
Seems like one could benefit from a tool/program that would alert users that they are crossing into FIAT built systems and remind us to shut down and reboot and use or develop a new system that is best aligned with our goals. If that is our goals really are to rebuild a new world and all its systems based on free, open source, immutable systems that allow us to truly provide value to each vs. the system which is only focused on extracting value from others and enriching oneself?
This seems to me to be "much to do about nothing" - when viewed through the lens of FOSS - As all our everything should be -
Open dialogue: The company could have reached out to the project maintainers before taking legal action, explaining their concerns and seeking a mutual resolution.
Coexistence agreement: The company could allow the project to continue under certain conditions, such as disclaimers stating it is not affiliated with "Blockclock."
Grace period for renaming: Instead of an immediate takedown, the company could offer the project time to rebrand itself (e.g., a non-similar name like “btc-timer”).
Assistance with rebranding: They could even assist the open-source project with resources or publicity to help transition to a new name.
Limited-use license: If the trademark holder isn’t directly harmed by the open-source project, they could grant a license to use a variation of the name under certain conditions (e.g., non-commercial use).
This scenario highlights challenges in balancing intellectual property rights with the open-source ethos:
Open-source projects often lack legal resources: Legal action or takedown requests can disproportionately affect smaller projects, even when they don’t pose a significant threat.
Trademark enforcement vs. community goodwill: Aggressive actions might harm the company’s reputation within the developer and cryptocurrency communities.
While the company's actions may be legally justified, they might not be perceived as fair by the broader community, especially if the open-source project wasn’t causing harm. Alternative resolutions, such as collaboration, renaming support, or licensing, could have maintained goodwill while still protecting the trademark.
Could There Have Been Other Ways to Resolve This?
1. Collaboration
2. Renaming Support
3. Licensing
4. Mediation
Broader Implications
Conclusion