4 ms·

I'm the developer of Cydia, an alternative to the App Store for jailbroken iOS devices, a software ecosystem which was filled with both modifications to existin

by saurik 5y ago

I'm the developer of Cydia, an alternative to the App Store for jailbroken iOS devices, a software ecosystem which was filled with both modifications to existing clients and complete re-implementations of clients, and this is definitely the #1 mistake that new developers would make (much to my annoyance, as it just seems so OBVIOUS of a thing to not do, but people really are idiots): you need to be extremely careful with trademarks and logos--only ever talking about a client "for" some other service as opposed to using that service's name as a modifier on your app (so, "YouTube Vanced" is definitely never OK and a dumb decision when you could say "Vanced for YouTube" or even be extremely safe and just stick with "Vanced", leaving any mention of "YouTube" to your descriptions), etc.--lest you get wrecked. And yet, somehow, you see it happen time and time again as people just can't help themselves when it comes to using other peoples' trademarks for their clients. And yes: it is an incredibly simple thing to avoid, and yet it is also a deceptively difficult thing to fix and cleanly walk away from later when the other party actively wants you to not exist as you are often now stuck in a really shitty position with respect to the hole you have already dug yourself into and the legal fees you are potentially going to lose just trying to defend yourself going forward. Hell: someone I don't like from the "extended" Cydia ecosystem (if nothing else: they are the kind of person who thinks they are above trademarks) once even just hinted on Twitter at building a product with the name "Snapchat" in it (which I obviously would never have sold as I was really careful about this sort of stuff) and their lawyers started coming after me with a cease and desist for something I wasn't even going to do, costing me thousands of dollars to deal with (as their lawyer knew to directly contact my lawyer, making it harder for me to avoid any costs).

oauea 5y ago
Copyright and trademark law isn't taught in most schools. Why would you expect most people to know how to avoid the traps laid out by the corporations?
- saurik 5y ago
  1) One reason I feel it is so "obvious" is that trademark law (which I am going to isolate, as this has nothing to do with copyright law: the two are often lumped together but they are extremely different and serve a very different purpose) is more reasonably structured than people give it credit for and most of it really is designed to prevent impersonation, which by and large helps consumers and end users; and like, frankly, in most of these cases, if you ask people why they insisted on using the other person's product's name in their product it actually isn't benign: they actively want their users to confused the two products a bit. 2) Even if you don't agree with the concepts behind trademark law and you really believe that it is somehow a "trap" laid out by corporations, if you are going out of your way to go to war with a multi-billion dollar company your mental model shouldn't be "in for a penny, in for a pound" but more "choose your battles wisely": even ignoring the "you should have a lawyer" aspects of this, you should analyze each decision you make from the perspective of "can I foresee this making them extra-angry" and then decide "is this a core part of my crusade, or is this the kind of thing that is just going to make me more likely to end up failing?".
- p1necone 5y ago
  I have almost zero understanding of the details of trademark law (and I don't recall it coming up in school), but not using someone elses trademark on my own product seems pretty obvious to me.
htrp 5y ago
> their lawyers started coming after me with a cease and desist for something I wasn't even going to do, costing me thousands of dollars to deal with (as their lawyer knew to directly contact my lawyer, making it harder for me to avoid any costs). Why would Snapchat's lawyers go directly to your lawyers on this one? And how would that cost you legal fees. Wouldn't your lawyers need your sign-off to bill on any projects that they are to undertake?
- saurik 5y ago
  Snapchat's lawyers actually knew my IP lawyers from a prior issue (which wasn't actually related to Snapchat). (And it isn't even that strange, btw: there is actually a quirk of legal ethics that if, as a lawyer, you know someone else is represented by a lawyer, you aren't supposed to directly contact that person without going through their lawyer.)
  - tptacek 5y ago
    What kind of retainer arrangement do you have with your IP lawyers where someone can reach out to them directly and incur billable time? I've got a couple different kinds of lawyers, and there isn't one of them you could call up and get me billed for. You might have a reasonable complaint for your lawyers about this!
    - zo1 5y ago
      They're lawyers, so this kind of setup is probably in their agreement already, and thus nothing the person could do. I'd chalk it up as a paid-for lesson and keep an eye out for it in subsequent agreements. Some call me crazy, but I always read what I'm signing before I sign, even if it's something coming from my SO to "just quickly sign", or if it's random paperwork that a teller or person just gives me while saying "sign here and here and we're all done" as if it's the most normal of things and not some super-scary contract where I could be selling my kidneys to a company.
      - ascar 5y ago
smoldesu 5y ago
A little off-topic, but it's really cool to see that you're still floating around here. One of my first "hacker" moments was Jailbreaking a used first-gen iPod I bought off Craigslist in 5th grade. I remember seeing your name on a number of things, and people always mentioned you on forums/IRC when I had questions. Never got around to saying hello, but I suppose it's better late than never to say 'thank you' for expanding my young mind and really shoving me head-first into the world of futzing with locked-down electronics!
- 8note 5y ago
  its interesting to think of what future benefits youtube gets as a company by encouraging said hackers as possible future employees saud justification seems much more important to the US government though
- hn_99 5y ago
  I had the exact same experience, although I was older (9th/10th grade). I'd go so far as to say I might not be a programmer if it wasn't for my experience of tweaking the hell out of my jailbroken iPod touch.
8note 5y ago
As a consumer, I'd only think of them as being Vanced, and also mostly forget their name
- croon 5y ago
  It took me a while to see "Advanced, without the ad(s)"
overlordalex 5y ago
> And yet, somehow, you see it happen time and time again as people just can't help themselves when it comes to using other peoples' trademarks for their clients. This is exactly what happened with "Reddit is fun" which had to rebrand as "RiF" but quickly changed again to "RiF is fun for Reddit" which is a rather clunky name but seems to meet the criteria of having enough standoff to the original
- Semaphor 5y ago
  Same with RedditSync -> Sync for Reddit
jacquesm 5y ago
That lawyer should have notified you first, then you could have passed them on to your lawyer. These arrangements are not a blanket thing, they are typically on a per-case basis. And your lawyer likely should have contacted you to get your agreement that they were going to represent you in this matter. Which likely they did only you didn't realize that that was what was happening. If my lawyer started to invoice me for a matter that I did not refer to them I would tell them to go pound sand, lawyers or not. So beware of accidentally agreeing that they could represent you if they notified you.
plibither8 5y ago
Welp. Makes me wonder whether Hacker News or @dang will send a C&D for naming my browser extension "Refined Hacker News" :P. /s
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  You could explain in court that "Refined for Hacker News" just sounded stupid.
- sjtgraham 5y ago
  Maybe. YC registered "Hacker News" as a trademark a few years ago.
2Gkashmiri 5y ago
i would suggest you to discuss your arrangement with your lawyer (i am one and i do not do any work on behalf of the client without their approval. not even agreeing to discuss matter with a third party, let the client confirm if they want me to talk) that said, i was exposed to cydia back in 2008 with the original iphone and used that phone till around 2013 i guess. best time of my life. thank you for your work. the "Walled garden" that apple created was made more open because of your work. thank you again

by saurik 5y ago

oauea 5y ago

Copyright and trademark law isn't taught in most schools. Why would you expect most people to know how to avoid the traps laid out by the corporations?

saurik 5y ago
1) One reason I feel it is so "obvious" is that trademark law (which I am going to isolate, as this has nothing to do with copyright law: the two are often lumped together but they are extremely different and serve a very different purpose) is more reasonably structured than people give it credit for and most of it really is designed to prevent impersonation, which by and large helps consumers and end users; and like, frankly, in most of these cases, if you ask people why they insisted on using the other person's product's name in their product it actually isn't benign: they actively want their users to confused the two products a bit. 2) Even if you don't agree with the concepts behind trademark law and you really believe that it is somehow a "trap" laid out by corporations, if you are going out of your way to go to war with a multi-billion dollar company your mental model shouldn't be "in for a penny, in for a pound" but more "choose your battles wisely": even ignoring the "you should have a lawyer" aspects of this, you should analyze each decision you make from the perspective of "can I foresee this making them extra-angry" and then decide "is this a core part of my crusade, or is this the kind of thing that is just going to make me more likely to end up failing?".
p1necone 5y ago
I have almost zero understanding of the details of trademark law (and I don't recall it coming up in school), but not using someone elses trademark on my own product seems pretty obvious to me.

htrp 5y ago

> their lawyers started coming after me with a cease and desist for something I wasn't even going to do, costing me thousands of dollars to deal with (as their lawyer knew to directly contact my lawyer, making it harder for me to avoid any costs). Why would Snapchat's lawyers go directly to your lawyers on this one? And how would that cost you legal fees. Wouldn't your lawyers need your sign-off to bill on any projects that they are to undertake?

saurik 5y ago
Snapchat's lawyers actually knew my IP lawyers from a prior issue (which wasn't actually related to Snapchat). (And it isn't even that strange, btw: there is actually a quirk of legal ethics that if, as a lawyer, you know someone else is represented by a lawyer, you aren't supposed to directly contact that person without going through their lawyer.)
- tptacek 5y ago
  What kind of retainer arrangement do you have with your IP lawyers where someone can reach out to them directly and incur billable time? I've got a couple different kinds of lawyers, and there isn't one of them you could call up and get me billed for. You might have a reasonable complaint for your lawyers about this!
  - zo1 5y ago
    They're lawyers, so this kind of setup is probably in their agreement already, and thus nothing the person could do. I'd chalk it up as a paid-for lesson and keep an eye out for it in subsequent agreements. Some call me crazy, but I always read what I'm signing before I sign, even if it's something coming from my SO to "just quickly sign", or if it's random paperwork that a teller or person just gives me while saying "sign here and here and we're all done" as if it's the most normal of things and not some super-scary contract where I could be selling my kidneys to a company.
    - ascar 5y ago

smoldesu 5y ago

A little off-topic, but it's really cool to see that you're still floating around here. One of my first "hacker" moments was Jailbreaking a used first-gen iPod I bought off Craigslist in 5th grade. I remember seeing your name on a number of things, and people always mentioned you on forums/IRC when I had questions. Never got around to saying hello, but I suppose it's better late than never to say 'thank you' for expanding my young mind and really shoving me head-first into the world of futzing with locked-down electronics!

8note 5y ago
its interesting to think of what future benefits youtube gets as a company by encouraging said hackers as possible future employees saud justification seems much more important to the US government though
hn_99 5y ago
I had the exact same experience, although I was older (9th/10th grade). I'd go so far as to say I might not be a programmer if it wasn't for my experience of tweaking the hell out of my jailbroken iPod touch.

8note 5y ago

As a consumer, I'd only think of them as being Vanced, and also mostly forget their name

croon 5y ago
It took me a while to see "Advanced, without the ad(s)"

overlordalex 5y ago

> And yet, somehow, you see it happen time and time again as people just can't help themselves when it comes to using other peoples' trademarks for their clients. This is exactly what happened with "Reddit is fun" which had to rebrand as "RiF" but quickly changed again to "RiF is fun for Reddit" which is a rather clunky name but seems to meet the criteria of having enough standoff to the original

Semaphor 5y ago
Same with RedditSync -> Sync for Reddit

jacquesm 5y ago

That lawyer should have notified you first, then you could have passed them on to your lawyer. These arrangements are not a blanket thing, they are typically on a per-case basis. And your lawyer likely should have contacted you to get your agreement that they were going to represent you in this matter. Which likely they did only you didn't realize that that was what was happening. If my lawyer started to invoice me for a matter that I did not refer to them I would tell them to go pound sand, lawyers or not. So beware of accidentally agreeing that they could represent you if they notified you.

plibither8 5y ago

Welp. Makes me wonder whether Hacker News or @dang will send a C&D for naming my browser extension "Refined Hacker News" :P. /s

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
You could explain in court that "Refined for Hacker News" just sounded stupid.
sjtgraham 5y ago
Maybe. YC registered "Hacker News" as a trademark a few years ago.

2Gkashmiri 5y ago

i would suggest you to discuss your arrangement with your lawyer (i am one and i do not do any work on behalf of the client without their approval. not even agreeing to discuss matter with a third party, let the client confirm if they want me to talk) that said, i was exposed to cydia back in 2008 with the original iphone and used that phone till around 2013 i guess. best time of my life. thank you for your work. the "Walled garden" that apple created was made more open because of your work. thank you again