3 ms·

> We created a standard API for cars. What do they mean by "standard" here if they object to this API being copied? The very goal of API standardization is to

> We created a standard API for cars. What do they mean by "standard" here if they object to this API being copied? The very goal of API standardization is to have a common interface for TWO parts to talk to each other in a consistent manner. An API that through whatever means allows for only one specific backend doesn't really qualify for being a "standard". > How Otonomo is illegally cloning our product So am I to understand that the API spec is their product? Or is their API not as standard as they claim? Can't have your cake and eat it too.

PunchTornado 8y ago
Exactly, I don't understand what is their objection. Since when copying some API docs is illegal? We don't even know yet if API are copyrightable, right? Ever since Facebook copied snapchat's features like it was nothing it became clear for everyone that the best clone will win. You have a product? Expect a clone of it. To me this post is just "they stole my idea" whining.
- huhtenberg 8y ago
  No, verbatim copying of the docs, API or not, is obviously not right. However if they are claiming to aim for API standardization, the specs should be in public domain from the start.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Facebook's cloning of Snapchat's features is legal. If they'd copied Snapchat's "how to use <feature>" documentation verbatim, typos and all, that'd have been a copyright violation.
  - joemi 8y ago
    Did you look at the linked article? It's not verbatim. It's clear that it was heavily based on Smartcar's docs, but it's most certainly not verbatim.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      Did you? There's no way they got the same random state and client UUID via chance. That's a direct copy/paste. So are various tables they provided screenshots of.
      - joemi 8y ago
        I'm not saying they didn't copy small portions of the original, such the highlighted UUIDs. But they most certainly did not copy the entire documentation (or even large portions) _verbatim_. They _paraphrased_ large portions of the documentation. "Verbatim" ("in exactly the same words as were used originally") has a purposefully different meaning than "paraphrase" ("express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words").

PunchTornado 8y ago

Exactly, I don't understand what is their objection. Since when copying some API docs is illegal? We don't even know yet if API are copyrightable, right? Ever since Facebook copied snapchat's features like it was nothing it became clear for everyone that the best clone will win. You have a product? Expect a clone of it. To me this post is just "they stole my idea" whining.

huhtenberg 8y ago
No, verbatim copying of the docs, API or not, is obviously not right. However if they are claiming to aim for API standardization, the specs should be in public domain from the start.
ceejayoz 8y ago
Facebook's cloning of Snapchat's features is legal. If they'd copied Snapchat's "how to use <feature>" documentation verbatim, typos and all, that'd have been a copyright violation.
- joemi 8y ago
  Did you look at the linked article? It's not verbatim. It's clear that it was heavily based on Smartcar's docs, but it's most certainly not verbatim.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    Did you? There's no way they got the same random state and client UUID via chance. That's a direct copy/paste. So are various tables they provided screenshots of.
    - joemi 8y ago
      I'm not saying they didn't copy small portions of the original, such the highlighted UUIDs. But they most certainly did not copy the entire documentation (or even large portions) _verbatim_. They _paraphrased_ large portions of the documentation. "Verbatim" ("in exactly the same words as were used originally") has a purposefully different meaning than "paraphrase" ("express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words").