While I sympathize with the argument that trademark law requires enforcement, Blockclock is such a generic name that a trademark should have never been issued. Equally, displaying Bitcoin data like block height on a screen is an obvious idea that certainly doesn't deserve protection. Notably, the term "btcclock" was coined 7 years ago by rcassata, for essentially the same idea: There's nothing wrong with another project choosing to use that generic name for yet another implementation of the same idea. Coinkite should do the right thing here and withdraw their takedown.
Djuri's avatar Djuri
OK, past few days were quite wild. I am currenly in El Salvador because I was attending the Adopting Bitcoin conference. My very limited internet connection here made it quite difficult to engage, I mostly just got push notifications. Hereby I want to take the opportunity to tell the story from my side. TL;DR: We were just having fun, we thought it was okay. Apperently it's not and nvk is is so upset that he felt he had to file a GitHub takedown request. I feel that's not how bitcoiners behave. ### How it started I have been working on the #BTClock since April '23. It started of some sort of bet where I challenged myself to make a BTC ticker as cheap as possible. I just ordered seven eInk displays on AliExpress with the intention of showing information related to bitcoin using an ESP32. Why seven? Because the words BITCOIN and SATOSHI both consist of seven letters and connecting more screens to the ESP32 did not seem possible without adding I/O-port expanders. Yes. The idea was inspired (among other projects) by Blockclock, which also uses eInk displays. I don't own one, so I couldn't "reverse engineer" or use any direct inspiration of it but the way you can combine multiple eInk displays to display information in an useful way is very limited. After getting the schematic right. I created a 3D printable case for it (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6009628) and named it BTClock after someone's idea in the Dutch Noderunners community. Since it consists of seven characters I thought it's the perfect name since it fits the seven displays too. View quoted note โ†’ ### May 2023 This allows you to create a BTClock for ยฑ70 euro (if you own a 3D printer). I shared the progress of the project in the MakerBits telegram group. Ben Arc checked with nvk how he felt about it, and I have seen his responsse where he replied with that he felt honored and that I should go ahead. In hindsight, I should've asked Ben to forward this to me but I wouldn't expect this to "haunt" me like it did last week. After sharing the very spaghetti-y schematic in some Telegram groups, someone replied that he was working on making an actual PCB out of it. After some DM'ing back and forth we got our first PCB prototype that needed some work. After 4 iterations we finally got it how we wanted and were able to sell DIY kits. The PCB is real artwork, so we wanted to show it off. Therefore we added a acrylic backplate to be able to protect it while still able to see the proof-of-work by Madbo, the PCB artwork designer. We used a lot of through hole components to make it accesible for anyone who has a soldering iron. ### August 2023 In August 2023 we finally got the kits ready, while the initial plan was to only sell the DIY kit within the Dutch Noderunners community, I brought smoe with me to Baltic Honeybadger '23 as well, where it proved to be pretty succesful while sitting next to Ben in the chilling lounge. I got a lot of encouraging and positive remarks about the project, including Daniel Prince (@princeysov) who tweeted about this (https://x.com/Princey21M/status/1698257536418267624). It appeared that this tweet firstly poked the lion, since nvk sent some of his coinkite employees to me after this tweet, a group of 4 people asked a lot of questions while filming me (without my consent, I didn't realize this when they were asking it but when they walked away it was clear to see the iPhone was recording video). Not a lot later, nvk sent out a tweet which was clearly about the BTClock project without explicitly mentioning the name (https://x.com/nvk/status/1698423362819682400) However, in my opinion this did still fit the message I read he wrote to Ben that he was more flattered than upset. It was only then when I learned about how he reacted to Foundation Passport and how he behaves regarding the SeedSigner project. image ### March 2024 During Bitcoin Atlantis in March 2024, there was a nice space for the MakerBits projects including the BTClock, the software by this time has many improvements, including real-time new block notifications by utilizing the Mempool.space Websocket API. Since the hardware is also open source, many alternative faceplates are available including a stainless steel one and a completely white one. Multiple people witnessed nvk walking passed the maker space while looking at me, but he did not engage or whatsoever. I would expect if he would take offense by the product, he would've approached me by now but he didn't. He does know who I am though, both in real-life and I'm posting enough on my social media accounts (Nostr and Xitter) to find me there as well. ### Fast forward to November 2024 A lot has happened in the development of the BTClock, among other things I added a BitAxe integration and Nostr Zap Notifications to the software and we managed to add frontlight to the eInk displays which I really think sets the BTClock apart from other "tickers" like the Blockclock mini. The Blockclock mini hasn't had any updates for two years (since October 3rd, 2022) which seems to be like the Blockclick mini can be considered end-of-life. I therefore was very suprised that when I woke up on November 14th, I received an e-mail that the BTClock GitHub organization was flagged because of alleged trademark infringement of the BTClock. This was according to a report by Coinkite to GitHub. The letter I shared in the MakerBits Telegram group was ONLY sent to GitHub, not to me (although I haven't been home for a while so I don't know something is waiting in my physical mailbox). Luckily git is decentralized version control and there are already mirrors of the hardware and software source available. Also GitHub allows me to appeal but haven't taken the chance to do so. Although I do understand that the concept of trademarks exists for a reason, I feel this a very cowardly move and certainly not something that I would expect from fellow bitcoiners. Just sending me a DM on Nostr, X or Telegram is the least I would expect. I don't mean to offend or infringe, and would be happy to discuss options if open to it. Either in DM or out in the open. I'm all about transparency so @DETERMINISTIC OPTIMISM ๐ŸŒž here is my invitation to discuss this out in the open. I'm sorry that we seem to upset you. what is it that bothers you, can we find a way to let the projects co-exist? Or even see if the BTClock software can adapted to your Blockclock mini hardware.
View quoted note →

Replies (33)

If it was a good intellectual property claim like a GPL violation or an original trademark I'd be fine with it. It's not.
NVK's claim that I read was that someone was infringing on the specific trademark blockclock. Trademark does not cover a process, nor a copyright. It appears that BTCclock created a competing product with original authorship. He mentions that he didn't reverse engineer a blockclock, but even if he did, that's perfectly legal within the DMCA. Copyright and trademark do not protect the duplication of an idea. So either I misread NVK's statement that his actual trademark was being infringed upon and he implied that that trademark was specifically "blockclock", or he is not acting in good faith.
Sure thing. BLOCKCLOCK IS SUCH A GENERIC NAME THAT A TRADEMARK SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ISSUED ๐™ฑ๐™ป๐™พ๐™ฒ๐™บ๐™ฒ๐™ป๐™พ๐™ฒ๐™บ ๐™ธ๐š‚ ๐š‚๐š„๐™ฒ๐™ท ๐™ฐ ๐™ถ๐™ด๐™ฝ๐™ด๐š๐™ธ๐™ฒ ๐™ฝ๐™ฐ๐™ผ๐™ด ๐šƒ๐™ท๐™ฐ๐šƒ ๐™ฐ ๐šƒ๐š๐™ฐ๐™ณ๐™ด๐™ผ๐™ฐ๐š๐™บ ๐š‚๐™ท๐™พ๐š„๐™ป๐™ณ ๐™ท๐™ฐ๐š…๐™ด ๐™ฝ๐™ด๐š…๐™ด๐š ๐™ฑ๐™ด๐™ด๐™ฝ ๐™ธ๐š‚๐š‚๐š„๐™ด๐™ณ ๏ผข๏ผฌ๏ผฏ๏ผฃ๏ผซ๏ผฃ๏ผฌ๏ผฏ๏ผฃ๏ผซโ€ƒ๏ผฉ๏ผณโ€ƒ๏ผณ๏ผต๏ผฃ๏ผจโ€ƒ๏ผกโ€ƒ๏ผง๏ผฅ๏ผฎ๏ผฅ๏ผฒ๏ผฉ๏ผฃโ€ƒ๏ผฎ๏ผก๏ผญ๏ผฅโ€ƒ๏ผด๏ผจ๏ผก๏ผดโ€ƒ๏ผกโ€ƒ๏ผด๏ผฒ๏ผก๏ผค๏ผฅ๏ผญ๏ผก๏ผฒ๏ผซโ€ƒ๏ผณ๏ผจ๏ผฏ๏ผต๏ผฌ๏ผคโ€ƒ๏ผจ๏ผก๏ผถ๏ผฅโ€ƒ๏ผฎ๏ผฅ๏ผถ๏ผฅ๏ผฒโ€ƒ๏ผข๏ผฅ๏ผฅ๏ผฎโ€ƒ๏ผฉ๏ผณ๏ผณ๏ผต๏ผฅ๏ผค ๐•ญ๐•ท๐•บ๐•ฎ๐•ถ๐•ฎ๐•ท๐•บ๐•ฎ๐•ถ ๐•ด๐•พ ๐•พ๐–€๐•ฎ๐•ณ ๐•ฌ ๐•ฒ๐•ฐ๐•น๐•ฐ๐•ฝ๐•ด๐•ฎ ๐•น๐•ฌ๐•ธ๐•ฐ ๐•ฟ๐•ณ๐•ฌ๐•ฟ ๐•ฌ ๐•ฟ๐•ฝ๐•ฌ๐•ฏ๐•ฐ๐•ธ๐•ฌ๐•ฝ๐•ถ ๐•พ๐•ณ๐•บ๐–€๐•ท๐•ฏ ๐•ณ๐•ฌ๐–๐•ฐ ๐•น๐•ฐ๐–๐•ฐ๐•ฝ ๐•ญ๐•ฐ๐•ฐ๐•น ๐•ด๐•พ๐•พ๐–€๐•ฐ๐•ฏ
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 โ†’ View quoted note โ†’ 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's avatar Brett Phillips
People really like to misunderstand the โ€œethosโ€ 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, youโ€™d be doing the same, or youโ€™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 →
IIRC if: 1. company A doesn't file a trademark; and later 2. company B does Then company B needs to fight the trademark of company A. Or they wait for company B to strike and defend themselves based on prior art. But that won't do you much good once Github / Amazon took down your stuff, and they won't act unless you show them your trademark or proof that the other trademark rejected. Or you have to take Microsoft / Amazon to court yourself. So it's better to get the trademark preemptively. I'm not sure if you then also need to enforce it consistently against others, if you only got the trademark for defensive purposes like the scenario above.
I might also be possible to not file a trademark yourself, but aggressively monitor and fight any attempt by others. But that seems like more work than just filing it yourself. And if you miss one, you're probably at a disadvantage.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Like I said, trademark law is a enforce it or lose it thing: you have to stop people from infringing on your trademark or you can lose it. However in this case, we clearly have a situation where a trademark was issued for a generic term: Coinkite is threatening someone for using a name, btcclock, that Ricardo Cassata came up with _7_ years ago for the same concept, long before the Blockclock even existed. Coinkite chose to try to enforce their trademark broadly when they, at minimum, could have accepted that their trademark should apply narrowly given the fact that it is pretty generic. If the defendant was calling their project a "Blockclock" this situation would be more reasonable. They're not. They're using a different name.
Agreed. reputation damage to Coin kite for this pettiness is off the charts.
Nothing forces you to apply for a trademark. You can just accept that people may use the term "blockclock" to talk about block clocks. Coinkite is also a trademarked term, and it's a distinctive one that I have no issue with. They can just call their product a Coinkite Blockclock and everything would be fine. Anyway, this is irrelevant here: the competition they're threatening used the term BTClock. Which ironically is arguably _more_ distinctive than Blockclock due to the distinct spelling.
Incidentally, if you actually search the Canadian trademark databases you'll see there's four Blockclock trademarks filed, for both the name and the logo; the logo is distinctly different from the BTClock. Though it's still very generic. Just seven white boxes on a black background. Reminds me of how Apple tried to get a design patent on the black rectangle phone design...
> You can just accept that people may use the term "blockclock" to talk about block clocks. That doesn't work if an adversarial company files the trademark instead. An evil version of Djuri could have taken down Coinkite's Github and hosting that way. If he had trademarked BTCClock and there no Blockclock trademark already. The only defense against such an attack is already having a trademark, because that is the only way you're going to quickly and successfully appeal a takedown.
That's not how trademarks work. Previously having used a conflicting trademark is a defense. There's a long list of examples of big companies trying to use their trademarks against pre-existing users and failing.
I think you are confusing trademark with patent. Trademarks are names or stylistic art providing distinctiveness to a business, such as a logo with or without the trade name. The shape or orientation of components of the block-clock don't qualify as a trademark whatsoever. If you trademarked blockclock and not btcclock, you are SOL. If anything NVK's concern falls under copyright, and copyright only protects actual artwork such as the specific design, exact dimensions, shape and color of the blockclock. All three are in the category of intellectual property under US federal statutes, but trademark is specific to allowing a company to protect an identifying mark they use to distinguish their product or business activity. NVK's beef appears to be that someone else made a cheaper blockclock, called it something else and didn't infringe on any of his intellectual property whatsoever, so unless he can prove otherwise he can cry harder for all I care.
Did they ? Copy things come natural, building something else also. I like the idea especially the blockclock is 2 expensive! That as many other things.
I think you're talking about how they work in the court system. Unfortunately much of the world is run by the kangaroo courts of Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon which have very different rules. E.g. on the topic copyright, having obviously written a book yourself is not enough evidence to get it listed. Once their black box system flags something, you're fucked unless you take them to court or unless you can give them the piece of paper they want. https://sprovoost.nl/2022/06/01/amazon-and-the-dystopian-future-of-book-censorship/
Peter Todd's avatar Peter Todd
While I sympathize with the argument that trademark law requires enforcement, Blockclock is such a generic name that a trademark should have never been issued. Equally, displaying Bitcoin data like block height on a screen is an obvious idea that certainly doesn't deserve protection. Notably, the term "btcclock" was coined 7 years ago by rcassata, for essentially the same idea: There's nothing wrong with another project choosing to use that generic name for yet another implementation of the same idea. Coinkite should do the right thing here and withdraw their takedown. View quoted note โ†’
View quoted note →
โ†‘