It's possible he's always been this much of an idiot and has only managed to succeed to where he is by sheer dumb luck and the principle of failing consistently upward.
I've always assumed the buyout attempt was to devalue it and cause it to fail, so I would say failure was the goal before the value wasn't able to be manipulated.
It's probably losing a lot of money and he despises what twitter was (spreading the "woke mind-virus"), so if he can't make it a profitable Truth Social clone, he's going to kill it to cut his losses (in a "meme-able" way).
That is embarrassingly stupid. I don't even think he's doing it on purpose unless he has some humiliation fetish or something. If I made even one mistake even close to that stupid I'd hand the reins to someone capable.
No, the name "X" itself is trademarked in the context of a social media platform. The design of the logo is a different case. Though I'm not sure how solid of a case Meta has here because trademarking a single letter is a bit dubious.
I believe it would also extend to anything that can be confused with the white and blue logo in the context is social media.
I can't take the Android droid logo, make him blue, give him a squiggly antenna, and then try to make him the logo of my new phone company.
While Meta doesn't own the letter X, if the government says "People might get confused between these two marks" that's a valid reason to reject the trademark or prevent the company from calling itself that. See https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search/likelihood-confusion:
Likelihood of confusion exists between trademarks when the marks are so similar and the goods and/or services for which they are used are so related that consumers would mistakenly believe they come from the same source. Each application is decided on its own facts, and no strict mechanical test exists for determining likelihood of confusion.
So basically it would come down to a judge deciding if the marks are too similar to each other or not.
To determine whether a likelihood of confusion exists, the marks are first examined for their similarities and differences. Note that in order to find a likelihood of confusion, the marks do not have to be identical. When marks sound alike when spoken, are visually similar, and/or create the same general commercial impression in the consuming public’s mind, the marks may be considered confusingly similar. Similarity in sound, appearance, and/or meaning may be sufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion, depending on the relatedness of the goods and/or services.
So I could use something similar to the Android logo to sell fishing supplies, since the likelihood of confusion is small - Android doesn't make fishing supplies. We only have an issue if I start selling phones or if Android starts selling fishing supplies.
Trademark research would require paying people. Can you imagine that? Shudders.
At least you can always find designers who are happy to work for free. Sure, it might be just a Unicode character, but it has animated glitches tho. Those are cool.
I think we inadvertently have given x.org the hug of death in the past few days... I don't think their server have seen so many people link to it at once.
This reminds me of when Apple announced the iPhone and it turned out Linksys owned the iPhone name, and went through and slapped an 'iphone' sticker on all their IP telephones at the time.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Saudis finance the deal to buy Twitter? Given the platform was used extensively by protesters during the Arab Spring, would it be worth it to them to pay for Musk to destroy it?