Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

https://atproto.com/blog/at-protocol-trademark

by chaosharmonic • 7 days ago

201 148 7 days ago

atproto.com

derektank• 7 days ago

Any word on which entity was trying to trademark it first?

arjie2• 7 days ago

You can see the original application here: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn97700166&docI...

Atsign, Inc. for this thing probably https://atsign.com/resources/white-papers/the-atprotocol/

1shooner2• 7 days ago

We plan to transfer that ownership to an appropriate, independent protocol governance organization in the future.

I never realized there is no independent governance org that should have registered this. So AT is governed by a single for-profit entity, that also runs the only viable instance?

steveklabnik4• 7 days ago

There is an IETF Working Group these days https://atproto.com/blog/kicking-off-the-atp-working-group

Those can't register trademarks, of course.

that also runs the only viable instance?

This is false, both in the framing ("instances") and in the viability of running alternative infrastructure.

zoul• 7 days ago

But it’s true in the general idea of Bluesky being highly centralized and dependent on a single for-profit entity.

nar001• 7 days ago

How do you mean? As in you can run different instances or as in it's a false open protocol?

mort96• 7 days ago

Why can't the IETF register trademarks?

kmeisthax• 7 days ago

"Only viable instance" is not really the correct framing - Bluesky doesn't have instances. Anyone using ATProto without Bluesky will still be "on Bluesky".

When you go to bsky.app, you're interacting with the Bluesky AppView; one key feature of ATProto is that any AppView can interact with any (consenting) Personal Data Server (PDS). So you can self-host your PDS but still use bsky.app if you so choose. But critically, anyone can write an AppView; there are reimplementations of Bluesky as well as other social apps that use the same ATProto infrastructure. That would be closest thing to a Mastodon instance, except you don't have to host your data on it in order to use it. Imagine being able to go to a Lemmy instance and just post things with your Mastodon identity, and have everything show up without Mastodon having to know anything about Lemmy magazines or its special upvote / comment formats.

The actual centralization in ATProto lies in a combination of unfortunate design decisions and genuine friction in the self-hosted path. Being totally reliant on Bluesky is the happy path, self-hosting your PDS data is difficult but doable, and being totally independent of Bluesky is only possible if you do everything correctly right at the start.

First off, Bluesky doesn't offer any GUI tools for PDS migration. If you want to get off their PDS, you'll need to bust out command-line tools and possibly do some steps in advance of when you need to migrate in order for everything to work properly.

Second, even if you're on a PDS, you're still reliant on the Public Ledger of Credentials (PLC) to host your Distributed ID (DID) document. The PLC is run by Bluesky, although they've taken steps to make it easy to notice if they were to do something fucky with the PLC. But let's say we don't like that. There is a solution: you can host your DID document on a normal web server. Problem solved?

Well, if you were setting up an account for the first time, then yes, the problem is actually solved, you're 100% independent of Bluesky. But if you made the mistake of registering an account normally, you have a did:plc identity. And one core principle of ATProto is that identity names never ever ever change. So if you go and make a did:web identity, it's like having a second account, there is no way to tie your old did:plc identity into it. In fact, I'm pretty sure you can't even redirect one did:web identity to another (say if you need to switch domain names)

Regarding Bluesky's "independent protocol governance organization", they made the same promise about the PLC; but it hasn't actually been transferred yet. I would be a lot more bullish on ATProto if there was a way to migrate DIDs and retain all your followers and shit. And if there was proper graphical tools for data migration.

hack13124• 7 days ago

I would be a lot more bullish on ATProto if there was a way to migrate DIDs and retain all your followers and shit. And if there was proper graphical tools for data migration.

This is exactly where I’ve landed re: ATProto. If you actually want to self-host everything you lose one of the biggest draws of it, the migratable IDs.

I was looking into it to build an alternative to Threads/IG/TikTok for one of my hobby communities that’s become almost entirely reliant on Meta/Tencent. Being able to plug into the wider AT Proto world was a big draw, but not being able to self host a true alternative to did:plc has put a halt to that for now while I figure out what I want to do.

chowells• 7 days ago

Bluesky has a data store, handles account authorization, and runs a web app that provides a UI to access the backend services. That's an instance, whether they call it one or not. Refusal to admit this is obfuscation for reasons I cannot understand.

paride57457• 7 days ago

The nightmare of the Wsocial rollout is a testament of the massive control Bluesky has on the ATProto network.

If Wsocial was on ActivityPub or Nostr nothing similar would have happened.

ATProto has serious centralisation problems, baked into the design. And it makes sense, considering it came out of a Twitter R&D experiment to "decentralise" Twitter itself. Pure federation was never part of the initial design.

ActivityPub and Nostr solve the issue already.

wolvoleo• 7 days ago

Thanks for your clear and concise explanation!

snorremd2• 7 days ago

The PLC governance not having been moved yet is my one main gripe against ATProto/Atmosphere now. There is so much being built on top of this protocol, and I truly believe it has the chance to make the social web more decentralized while keeping everything connected. The PLC being controlled by one major commercial entity allows them to pull the plug so to speak. Say someone is sanctioned by the US, what stops Bluesky from pulling the plug on their DID thereby blocking and censoring this person from the network all together.

Half the point of ATProto is that identities are used across a host of apps, and therein lies a big vulnerability. If identities are not truly independent of centralized infrastructure, then you are vulnerable to losing access to a number of apps at once similar to Google services black hole if your Google account is banned (not to mentioned anywhere you've logged in with SSO).

It would be much better if the PLC was somehow decentralized itself. Barring that it should at least be finally spun out as the independent Swiss organization they've talked about for some time now. The organization could form a board with interested parties to set the future of PLC development if needed.

As for PDS migration, there are good options if you are migrating away from Bluesky. There are lots of GUI tools that work well now like https://pdsmoover.com/moover, Eurosky has https://move.eurosky.tech/, etc. It would be cool though if Bluesky actually linked to the other big PDS-providers on the Bluesky sign-up page to actually promote decentralization. But I guess it is hard to vouch for other services.

I still think the future of ATProto is bright, but there are definitely some obstacles before I'm comfortable with the whole setup. The network needs more decentralization in the PDS-layer, and the PLC needs to spin out in the separate governance organization pronto.

danabramov17• 7 days ago

First off, Bluesky doesn't offer any GUI tools for PDS migration. If you want to get off their PDS, you'll need to bust out command-line tools and possibly do some steps in advance of when you need to migrate in order for everything to work properly.

This is getting much better recently. I migrated to https://eurosky.tech/accounts/ with no command line — just needed to wait for a wizard in my browser to move my records. It could've been much faster and seamless (the app was confused after this and I had to re-login), but it's definitely accessible to non-technical people, and the share of independent hosting is growing.

sedatk• 7 days ago

So AT is governed by a single for-profit entity

A Public Benefit Corporation to be precise. So they are legally obligated to favor public benefit.

ocdtrekkie• 7 days ago

OpenAI proved even being a nonprofit can be handled away if the money's good enough. PBCs are much weaker in that regard than nonprofits.

kube-system4• 6 days ago

No, public benefits are allowed to include public interest reasons in their decision making, they are not required.

This structure was created to allow a business to protect the interest of the public when it conflicts with the interests of their shareholders

isodev• 7 days ago

Nothing Bluesky does is really independent. This is such a transparent playbook and yet folks keep falling for a couple of open source repos and whatever hot takes Dan Abramov posts to reframe “instances” to “open social” bs.

danabramov17• 7 days ago

If you have concrete counterarguments to what I said in my articles, I would be happy to debate these counterarguments here.

inigyou5• 7 days ago

Yes. It has never been decentralised.

danabramov17• 7 days ago

that also runs the only viable instance?

This is a category error. There are no "instances" in atproto.

https://overreacted.io/there-are-no-instances-in-atproto/

It segments the network differently (into "hosting" and "apps"), and on both axes anyone can run their independent app-agnostic hosting, as well as an independent hosting-agnostic app.

account423• 7 days ago

This "gotcha" might get cheers from your fellow AT proto fans but only eye rolls from everyone else.

1shooner2• 6 days ago

Thanks, this is informative. I had meant 'instance' from more of a general user adoption perspective (i.e. Bluesky app user plus Bluesky PDS tenant), but based on other comments here that may not be too accurate either.

bbor• 7 days ago

Thank god!

colesantiago• 7 days ago

I can’t imagine being a first time bootstrapped founder running a business without a trademark and not knowing that someone with bad faith would just register a trademark and just sue or order you to change your name.

These are the things that most startups account for when raising capital.

wmf2• 7 days ago

The community probably would have complained if they registered the trademark preemptively. But if they let the bad guys register it and then save the day it's the least bad solution.

arjie2• 7 days ago

The timeline just seems like two different brands wanted the name. atSign was using atProtocol as their thing. And trademarks are defend-or-lose. That AT Proto would grow so much more than atSign is just a thing we know now. They were both contemporaneous and it doesn't seem to have been some kind of gazumping operation so much as two groups landing on a name.

pfraze• 7 days ago

Bluesky recently acquired the rights to the trademark for “ATPROTOCOL” and its variants—including “AT Protocol” and “atproto”—from another company that was threatening to take legal action preventing the company and others from using the term. Now that Bluesky owns it, the atproto community’s continued use of the mark can be protected.

The policy around usage is shared in the rest of the post but the goal is to make this very simple for everyone

AndrewKemendo• 7 days ago

Government bodies can work for us at the point we collectively decide it’s a priority.

sschueller• 7 days ago

So what about the existing AT protocol modems use?

wmf2• 7 days ago

No one cares.

Brian_K_White• 7 days ago

I don't remember ever hearing that called AT proto or AT protocol, just AT commands or AT commandset etc.

Even though I'm that old, even I don't care even if it was anyway.

...as long as the reason is what it looks like. Rather have Bluesky claim it for the purpose of having the officially recognized legal authority to grant usage to everyone else, than have a rando douche company think they can claim it to extort or simply inhibit everyone else.

ReptileMan• 7 days ago

They use AT command set, not protocol.

bux93• 7 days ago

That's the Hayes command set[1]. Hayes was a registered trademark up until 2022[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayes_AT_command_set [2] https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/73319703

ray_v• 7 days ago

I had to shake my head for a moment as I was instantly transported back to 1998 with that comment lol

hunmernop• 7 days ago

Who? What?

dmzxnico• 7 days ago

Interesting, I believe that's a pretty good move from them.

eqvinox4• 7 days ago

Cool people use ActivityPub.

Single vendor owned & controlled standards always turn out badly, just a question when.

fsflover3• 7 days ago

Actually, it is possible to join Bluesky without relying on the single point of failure, as Cory Doctorow highlighted here: https://pluralistic.net/2026/03/05/executive-dysfunction/

master-lincoln• 7 days ago

actually, you did not respond to what parent said. How is the standardization process related to joining the network?

p-e-w• 7 days ago

The single point of failure is always the biggest instances or communities, which impose their rules on everyone else under threat of refusing to communicate with them.

This has happened with every single federated platform, and it can’t be solved with technology because it’s fundamentally not a technology problem. People want to be where other people are, so once the community reaches a critical mass it inevitably degrades into the same sump of mediocrities and their rules as everything else.

danabramov17• 7 days ago

Cool people use ActivityPub.

ActivityPub solves a completely different (arguably, smaller) set of problems. This is like saying "Cool people use email instead of web".

I have a few diagrams here that may help see just how different they are: https://overreacted.io/there-are-no-instances-in-atproto/#so...

Single vendor owned & controlled standards always turn out badly, just a question when.

Yeah, which is why atproto is going to IETF: https://atproto.com/blog/kicking-off-the-atp-working-group. You can join the mailing list to participate in the discussions: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/atp/?gbt=1&index=.

wwalexander2• 7 days ago

The author of this comment is an engineer at Bluesky.

ktosobcy2• 6 days ago

Right… and still 99,99% of everything is held by bsky PDS and goes through their rely and appview… so much for "distributed federation"

eqvinox4• 6 days ago

Your diagram at the top of that explainer doesn't include the various Mastodon (not sure if instance<->reader is ActivityPub) client apps, but does include ATProto/Bluesky client apps. Without that, it seems rather incomplete and I don't feel like so can take away much from it?

LelouBil• 7 days ago

Look at how ActivityPub works before saying it's single vendor controlled.

Really basically: Everyone can have their data (posts, media attachments) on whatever server they want or control, easily self hosted.

And at the same time, people can also host "apps" like Bluesky that read said data and interpret conventions in naming to show it in a meaningfull way like as posts.

you can self host your data.

you can self host a bluesky view.

It actually kind of reminds me of openstreetmap, where it's actually only a database of keys and values, but apps interpret their meanings based on conventions

jackyalcine• 6 days ago

This is part of the reason why I stopped heavily engaging with ActivityPub. It's not everyone because I know the team of folks who make apps for the space but it's engagement like this who convinced me to write https://www.jacky.wtf/essays/2024/one-over-other/ and had me just step away from ActivityPub (at least until I can see https://github.com/swicg/activitypub-api drop and I'll reengage).

archagon2• 6 days ago

This is a non-sequitur? ATProto was explicitly designed to not be compatible with ActivityPub. They shot first. So why are you focused on tone-policing ActivityPub?

rudyfraser• 6 days ago

Chiming in to say as the CEO of Blacksky that not only do we have an independent AT Protocol implementation in Rust (https://github.com/blacksky-algorithms/rsky)

Not only do we run a fully independent stack (https://docs.blacksky.community/readme/list-of-our-services)

Not only are we getting paid by other orgs to stand up independent app view servers.

We also received a license from Bluesky for the atproto trademark.

There are no qualms in the ecosystem from people making money, getting users, and providing new experiences about this.

It’s not “AT Protocol fans” who aren’t taking issue with this. It’s business with employees and organizations making a positive impact.

It’s easy to criticize if you’re not actively shipping things.

shafyy• 6 days ago

We also received a license from Bluesky for the atproto trademark.

For now

yomismoaqui• 6 days ago

"I'm altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Darth Vader, VP of Contract Renegotiation

aidenn0• 6 days ago

Then they start calling it "buproto" or something. Firefox has a trademark too, but that didn't stop debian from distributing the same thing under the name Iceweasel...

gamerdonkey• 6 days ago

I agree that this is not an apocalyptic moment for the protocol. And I support what Blacksky is doing, so I kind of hate that this will probably be the only thing I get to say to you.

But the argument that established, profitable organizations in the atproto space have no qualms with this move is not as reassuring as you might think.

rubyn00bie• 6 days ago

I would not be surprised based on the post that the trademark will be given to some sort of non-profit foundation. The post itself made it seem pretty clear that the current reasons to have the PBC acquire it were:

1. An adversary attempting to do so in order to extract money (rent seeking).

2. There was less legal and financial overhead in doing so via the PBC.

While not everything BlueSky has done has been stellar, and there have been missteps, I think they’ve generally been exceptional stewards of atproto and the ecosystem. As a result, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt they will stand by their word.

FWIW— shithead trolls doing things like acquiring copyrights to extract “rents” are exactly why every org I’ve ever worked for pays lawyers for bullshit copyright and patent applications. It’s not because they’re valid, it’s because it’s cheaper to do so upfront, than fight to disprove someone else own’s them later.

chaosharmonic2• 6 days ago

Yeah, I had significantly less apprehension about it myself on reading their docs, but thought it was still news XD

eqvinox4• 6 days ago

We also received a license from Bluesky for the atproto trademark.

Is that license irrevocable/permanent from their side?

(It really needs to be, except for clauses against misconduct from your side.)

spankalee• 6 days ago

This would be much better titled "Bluesky Acquires the AT Protocol Trademark"

Bluesky Trademarks ATProto

Related Stories