<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;engadget&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 2 Feb 2010 21:29:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Engadget Latest To Try Comment Cooling Off Period; I Can't Figure Out Why</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100202/1839308015.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100202/1839308015.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last month, we wrote about a local news website in Illinois that was getting frustrated with the dialog in its comments, and it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/1717357605.shtml">instituted a "cooling off period"</a> where it shut down its comments for a while, hoping that it would drive away the less desirable comments.  The whole thing made no sense to us.  Those types of commenters would eventually come back, and the solution should be offering better incentives and better overall discussion for commenters, not blocking out everyone.  And yet... (without giving credit to the site that led the way last month), it looks like super popular gadget blog Engadget has <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/02/were-turning-comments-off-for-a-bit/" target="_blank">done the same thing</a>, apparently after comments over the whole iPad thing got too heated.  Engadget, of course, is owned by AOL -- and you would think that if there were any company out there that understood group dynamics online by now, it would be AOL.  Honestly, I'm still really confused as to what this will actually do, other than make Engadget a lot less interesting for those readers who took part in the community.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100202/1839308015.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100202/1839308015.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100202/1839308015.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sorta-missing-the-point</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100202/1839308015</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:24:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Engadget Mobile Threatened For Using T-Mobile's Trademarked Magenta</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080331/134624706.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080331/134624706.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've certainly seen some dumb trademark lawsuit threats lately, but T-Mobile parent Deutsche Telekom's supposed threats to Engadget may take the cake.  It's not that extraordinary for a company to trademark a distinct color that it uses in its logo, and that's exactly what T-Mobile did last year with a trademark (in Germany only) on the color magenta.  Now, it's important to realize that this doesn't mean T-Mobile "owns" that color or can forbid anyone else from using it.  It really just means that competing providers offering similar goods and services might run into trouble for using the same color, potentially leading to consumer confusion.  When this news broke, plenty of people got up in arms, suggesting that T-Mobile "owned" magenta, which just isn't true.  However, it <i>does</i> look like its lawyers think it gives them rights far beyond what it actually does.
<br /><br />
According to Engadget, Deutsche Telekom lawyers have <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/31/deutsche-telekom-t-mobile-demands-engadget-mobile-discontinue/" target="_new">sent a nastygram to Engadget, because the blog uses magenta in the logo</a> for its sister site, <a href="http://www.engadgetmobile.com/">Engadget Mobile</a>.  Of course, it's hard to believe that anyone would go to Engadget Mobile and believe it was somehow affiliated with T-Mobile.  The logos are quite different, and the services they offer (obviously) are totally unrelated.  In fact, this whole thing seemed so ridiculous that I assumed it was an April Fool's joke -- though the folks at Engadget insist it's not.  And, if you want icing on the cake, last year Engadget was one of a few sites that <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/09/know-your-rights-does-t-mobile-really-own-magenta/">defended T-Mobile</a> for its magenta trademark when it became news last year.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080331/134624706.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080331/134624706.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080331/134624706.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>morons-in-a-hurry</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080331/134624706</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>