[benbscholz]

What's troubling is not that another company had a digital scrapbooking service called Timeline, but this allegation:

"Timelines has its own page on Facebook. In its complaint, it alleges that the social networking giant is shifting visitors away from this page and redirecting them instead to Facebook’s own timeline page."

I can't see how this would be to Facebook's advantage. ALL of their users are getting the Timeline update, what's the point of trying to steal traffic from this other company?

[reso]

I don't speak for facebook, but I'm virtually certain this is either a fabrication, or a side-effect which is not legally actionable in the slightest.

Either:

1) The allegation is that facebook reappropriated Timelines' vanity url, which I know to be a forbidden practice internally. Furthermore, http://www.facebook.com/timelines goes to Timelines' page, while http://www.facebook.com/timeline goes to facebook's page about Timeline. Since the other service's name is "Timelines", it makes sense that they would have the vanity url that they appear to now.

2) The allegation is that by naming the feature Timeline, facebook users looking for Timelines' page will, out of confusion, find their way to Facebook's page instead. I have no idea how the plaintiffs think this is actionable if this is their complaint.

[benjoffe]

Sounds like a problem with the fact that users and pages can take facebook.com/xxx urls, it's not future proof. Although the overview page resides at /about/timeline, it's understandable that they want to redirect the /timeline path there too.

[FreeKill]

Yeah, that was pretty poor future planning on facebook's part, they should have made user pages have an extra path variable like facebook.com/u/timeline