4 ms·

Wow! You assume a lot! I posted this just because I want attention? You sure it couldn't have been something else? Not that I am pursuing this angle, but ju

by sdgr 11y ago

Wow! You assume a lot! I posted this just because I want attention? You sure it couldn't have been something else? Not that I am pursuing this angle, but just so you know: are you at least familiar with copyright or patent or anything like that? There is nothing new under the sun after all! So, the core idea is that the new thing be something non-obvious, applied to a new, unrelated domain. So, tell me how many software companies have used this analogy? Don't tell us irrelevant stuff from last century. If you want to make a point, this would be the way to back it up.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> You assume a lot! I posted this just because I want attention? I point to a similarly old promotional technique to the one you pretend is your invention that Google must have stolen. I didn't say you were using that promotional technique, though it wouldn't be an unreasonable inference from the completely unwarranted and unsupported claim of copying. > So, tell me how many software companies have used this analogy? Who cares? You and Google have both used variations on a practice which is much older than either of you, a well-known reference in American (and possibly other) culture, and a common practice in business promotion across multiple industries. Even if you are the only other software company [0] to have done it before, what difference does that make -- the fact that it is so culturally pervasive means that you need a lot more than "they did it after we did, and are very loosely in a similar industry" to make the claim "they copied from us" even remotely justified. [0] leaving aside the perennial argument that Google isn't in the software industry, they're in the advertising industry -- based on which we should really be asking which other advertising company has done this before if we were focusing on the somewhat ludicrous same-industry comparison that you have, without justification, asserted is mandatory.
- sdgr 11y ago
  > Who cares? Apparently you do. Without knowing anything about me or the company, you have decided to side with Google and are here, at least, trying to overlook the oddity. Which is no software company has ever done this apart from CampaignRunner! It is non-obvious. Would it surprise you to learn that we too are in "advertising" business. Again, I found it odd and posted about it. If you don't find it the least bit interesting, that is fine. No need to generate noise or downvote anything.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Which is no software company has ever done this Yeah, I'm just not buying this whole we're the only one to have ever used the common "<letter> is for <thing we provide>" -- for one more letters, including sometimes with the implication that the company being promoted provides a whole alphabet of solutions either by explicit claim using the term "alphabet" or by providing or implying coverage of the full alphabet of letters -- promotional gimmick in and around the software industry. https://twitter.com/mscloud/status/619883853587591168 https://twitter.com/mscloud/status/619883853587591168 http://www.wittyparrot.com/sales-blog/s-is-for-storytelling http://www.wittyparrot.com/sales-blog/s-is-for-storytelling http://www.ornavi.com/2015/05/31/the-a-z-of-ornavi-2/ http://www.ornavi.com/2015/05/31/the-a-z-of-ornavi-2/ http://blogs.blackberry.com/2015/07/the-a-to-z-of-qnx-in-cars/ http://blogs.blackberry.com/2015/07/the-a-to-z-of-qnx-in-car... http://nchsoftware.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-for-audio.html http://nchsoftware.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-for-audio.html http://www.computeruniverse.co.za/ABC.html http://www.computeruniverse.co.za/ABC.html > Would it surprise you to learn that we too are in "advertising" business. No, because I already knew that. Which makes it even sillier -- two companies that (whether more fairly viewed as technology companies or not) are in the advertising/marketing business both use different variations (not more similar to each other than each is to many other common instances of the technique) on a technique common in advertising and marketing. This is not surprising. That one of them would accuse the other of stealing the idea, based on the idea that, despite the fact that the technique is common, the two companies are "software" companies and supposedly no other software company has ever used the technique, is silly to the point of ludicrousness, even if the software-specific claim was true. > Again, I found it odd and posted about it. There's a different between finding it odd and posting about it and posting an direct accusation of the idea being stolen. (Also, the initial claim in your post is incorrect: CampaignRunner is not a previous example of a company with "alphabet in its name" based on its products. CampaignRunner is a company that at one point made a metaphorical reference to an alphabet based on its products, but did not incorporate "alphabet" into the company name.

by sdgr 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> You assume a lot! I posted this just because I want attention? I point to a similarly old promotional technique to the one you pretend is your invention that Google must have stolen. I didn't say you were using that promotional technique, though it wouldn't be an unreasonable inference from the completely unwarranted and unsupported claim of copying. > So, tell me how many software companies have used this analogy? Who cares? You and Google have both used variations on a practice which is much older than either of you, a well-known reference in American (and possibly other) culture, and a common practice in business promotion across multiple industries. Even if you are the only other software company [0] to have done it before, what difference does that make -- the fact that it is so culturally pervasive means that you need a lot more than "they did it after we did, and are very loosely in a similar industry" to make the claim "they copied from us" even remotely justified. [0] leaving aside the perennial argument that Google isn't in the software industry, they're in the advertising industry -- based on which we should really be asking which other advertising company has done this before if we were focusing on the somewhat ludicrous same-industry comparison that you have, without justification, asserted is mandatory.

sdgr 11y ago
> Who cares? Apparently you do. Without knowing anything about me or the company, you have decided to side with Google and are here, at least, trying to overlook the oddity. Which is no software company has ever done this apart from CampaignRunner! It is non-obvious. Would it surprise you to learn that we too are in "advertising" business. Again, I found it odd and posted about it. If you don't find it the least bit interesting, that is fine. No need to generate noise or downvote anything.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Which is no software company has ever done this Yeah, I'm just not buying this whole we're the only one to have ever used the common "<letter> is for <thing we provide>" -- for one more letters, including sometimes with the implication that the company being promoted provides a whole alphabet of solutions either by explicit claim using the term "alphabet" or by providing or implying coverage of the full alphabet of letters -- promotional gimmick in and around the software industry. https://twitter.com/mscloud/status/619883853587591168 https://twitter.com/mscloud/status/619883853587591168 http://www.wittyparrot.com/sales-blog/s-is-for-storytelling http://www.wittyparrot.com/sales-blog/s-is-for-storytelling http://www.ornavi.com/2015/05/31/the-a-z-of-ornavi-2/ http://www.ornavi.com/2015/05/31/the-a-z-of-ornavi-2/ http://blogs.blackberry.com/2015/07/the-a-to-z-of-qnx-in-cars/ http://blogs.blackberry.com/2015/07/the-a-to-z-of-qnx-in-car... http://nchsoftware.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-for-audio.html http://nchsoftware.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-for-audio.html http://www.computeruniverse.co.za/ABC.html http://www.computeruniverse.co.za/ABC.html > Would it surprise you to learn that we too are in "advertising" business. No, because I already knew that. Which makes it even sillier -- two companies that (whether more fairly viewed as technology companies or not) are in the advertising/marketing business both use different variations (not more similar to each other than each is to many other common instances of the technique) on a technique common in advertising and marketing. This is not surprising. That one of them would accuse the other of stealing the idea, based on the idea that, despite the fact that the technique is common, the two companies are "software" companies and supposedly no other software company has ever used the technique, is silly to the point of ludicrousness, even if the software-specific claim was true. > Again, I found it odd and posted about it. There's a different between finding it odd and posting about it and posting an direct accusation of the idea being stolen. (Also, the initial claim in your post is incorrect: CampaignRunner is not a previous example of a company with "alphabet in its name" based on its products. CampaignRunner is a company that at one point made a metaphorical reference to an alphabet based on its products, but did not incorporate "alphabet" into the company name.