9 ms·

I expected this to be a " I had the idea first" post. But it is actually a copyright infringement post AND makes the offending company look like a bunch of hack

I expected this to be a " I had the idea first" post. But it is actually a copyright infringement post AND makes the offending company look like a bunch of hacks. If they don't have the engineering chops to build an API how are going to handle the ops of it.

ttoinou 8y ago
So they have the intellectual property of some random CSS tables that everyone have on their website and a GET parameter of an URL ? Wow
- Veen 8y ago
  Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's the contents of the tables that have been ripped off.
  - scient 8y ago
    Its OAuth documentation - its a very well described standard protocol. Most of the OAuth documentation looks and reads exactly like this. The only "smoking gun" is the "random" value used for the state parameter, which seems to be copied over - and developers copy other products/sites documentation ALL THE TIME. While there is substance in the post that some other company is building the same product, saying that its literally cloning it and using documentation similarity for a standardized protocol is not really cutting it.
    - Veen 8y ago
      Product ideas are not subject to copyright. Documentation is. If developers copy other products' documentation "all the time" then they should stop (unless the documentation has a licence that allows it). Doing something "all the time" doesn't make it moral or legal.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      That smoking gun is smoking plenty. That and the typos are the kind of proof that are a godsend during a lawsuit when you're on the offense and a really really bad day when you're on the defense.
      - scient 8y ago
        And what would the lawsuit be based on? Stealing documentation for how OAuth 2.0 works?
        jacquesm 8y ago
        No, on copyright infringement.
    - tomc1985 8y ago
      I've been in this field for 10+ years and I have never encountered ripping off others' docs and calling them your own and it being ethically OK
    - bjourne 8y ago
      But several examples are just way over the top. Smartcar's description for "expires_in": "The number of seconds the access token is valid for. This is always set to 7200 (2 hours)." Otonomo's description for "expires_in": "The number of seconds the access token is valid for. This is always set to 7200 (2 hours)." Coincidence that both companies choose 7200 seconds and formulated the descriptions exactly the same? I think not.
      - ttoinou 8y ago
        Coincidence they choose the same English language ? I think not
dep_b 8y ago
Some people built the world's most popular operating system doing just that - copying Java's API.
- earenndil 8y ago
  But not their API documentation. They even copied the exact example UDID.
  - dep_b 8y ago
    ...and of course Java was somewhat open to begin with, which isn't the case for the technology the company that got copied in story. There's always the next level in douchebaggery, if Google was really wrong copying those headers to begin with.
  - simias 8y ago
    Copying the headers make sense even if you rewrite the implementation from scratch, it gives a very basic layer of verification that your implementation matches the original (if the declarations in the prototype clash with your rewrite, there's probably something wrong in there). It doesn't sound like a particularly bad or unethical technical decision to me, at least as long as it's done otherwise completely legally (which has been a very expensive question to settle). Copy/pasting docs and rewording everything to try and hide that fact is a lot lazier and shadier IMO.
- holtalanm 8y ago
  thats...not the same.
  - gpsx 8y ago
    Why do you say that? In some regards yes, and some no. I think the intellectual property is in the APIs/"headers". That is what Android uses from Java and what this company is copying from SmartCar. Its not easy to write a good API. (But, I should say, once you have the headers it is not as tough to populate them with code.) As for coping actual documentation, that is just plain stupid but not the _worse_ crime here. Now, what is different is that many of us don't approve the way Oracle is enforcing the rights on this information. Java is not like the SmartCar APIs in that it has been free to use for so long. All the same I think Oracle should have the legal right to do this. Many may disagree about Oracle vs Android but I think it is devaluing the work of people like James Gosling _and_ SmartCar if you say there is not intellectual value in the code/API headers.
everdev 8y ago
I was curious if some of these docs were auto-generate or templated copy, so I double checked some of the text. "The redirect_uri provided in Authorize User step" appears exactly once on the Internet according to Google: at smartcar.com. It looks like Otonomo did in fact copy/paste from the SmartCar website. https://www.google.com/search?q="The+redirect_uri+provided+in+Authorize+User+step" https://www.google.com/search?q="The+redirect_uri+provided+i...

ttoinou 8y ago

So they have the intellectual property of some random CSS tables that everyone have on their website and a GET parameter of an URL ? Wow

Veen 8y ago
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's the contents of the tables that have been ripped off.
- scient 8y ago
  Its OAuth documentation - its a very well described standard protocol. Most of the OAuth documentation looks and reads exactly like this. The only "smoking gun" is the "random" value used for the state parameter, which seems to be copied over - and developers copy other products/sites documentation ALL THE TIME. While there is substance in the post that some other company is building the same product, saying that its literally cloning it and using documentation similarity for a standardized protocol is not really cutting it.
  - Veen 8y ago
    Product ideas are not subject to copyright. Documentation is. If developers copy other products' documentation "all the time" then they should stop (unless the documentation has a licence that allows it). Doing something "all the time" doesn't make it moral or legal.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    That smoking gun is smoking plenty. That and the typos are the kind of proof that are a godsend during a lawsuit when you're on the offense and a really really bad day when you're on the defense.
    - scient 8y ago
      And what would the lawsuit be based on? Stealing documentation for how OAuth 2.0 works?
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        No, on copyright infringement.
  - tomc1985 8y ago
    I've been in this field for 10+ years and I have never encountered ripping off others' docs and calling them your own and it being ethically OK
  - bjourne 8y ago
    But several examples are just way over the top. Smartcar's description for "expires_in": "The number of seconds the access token is valid for. This is always set to 7200 (2 hours)." Otonomo's description for "expires_in": "The number of seconds the access token is valid for. This is always set to 7200 (2 hours)." Coincidence that both companies choose 7200 seconds and formulated the descriptions exactly the same? I think not.
    - ttoinou 8y ago
      Coincidence they choose the same English language ? I think not

dep_b 8y ago

Some people built the world's most popular operating system doing just that - copying Java's API.

earenndil 8y ago
But not their API documentation. They even copied the exact example UDID.
- dep_b 8y ago
  ...and of course Java was somewhat open to begin with, which isn't the case for the technology the company that got copied in story. There's always the next level in douchebaggery, if Google was really wrong copying those headers to begin with.
- simias 8y ago
  Copying the headers make sense even if you rewrite the implementation from scratch, it gives a very basic layer of verification that your implementation matches the original (if the declarations in the prototype clash with your rewrite, there's probably something wrong in there). It doesn't sound like a particularly bad or unethical technical decision to me, at least as long as it's done otherwise completely legally (which has been a very expensive question to settle). Copy/pasting docs and rewording everything to try and hide that fact is a lot lazier and shadier IMO.
holtalanm 8y ago
thats...not the same.
- gpsx 8y ago
  Why do you say that? In some regards yes, and some no. I think the intellectual property is in the APIs/"headers". That is what Android uses from Java and what this company is copying from SmartCar. Its not easy to write a good API. (But, I should say, once you have the headers it is not as tough to populate them with code.) As for coping actual documentation, that is just plain stupid but not the _worse_ crime here. Now, what is different is that many of us don't approve the way Oracle is enforcing the rights on this information. Java is not like the SmartCar APIs in that it has been free to use for so long. All the same I think Oracle should have the legal right to do this. Many may disagree about Oracle vs Android but I think it is devaluing the work of people like James Gosling _and_ SmartCar if you say there is not intellectual value in the code/API headers.

everdev 8y ago

I was curious if some of these docs were auto-generate or templated copy, so I double checked some of the text. "The redirect_uri provided in Authorize User step" appears exactly once on the Internet according to Google: at smartcar.com. It looks like Otonomo did in fact copy/paste from the SmartCar website. https://www.google.com/search?q="The+redirect_uri+provided+in+Authorize+User+step" https://www.google.com/search?q="The+redirect_uri+provided+i...