9 ms·

WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me

222 points by nphase 14y ago

wavephorm 14y ago
Their trademark probably shouldn't have been granted. This company didn't trademark the word "Who", they trademarked "WhosHere" which is quite obviously a different word. This reminds me of McDonald's who go around the world suing every company that has a food product starting with "Mc" (eg. a Scotch distillery founded a hundred years before McDonald's even got sued). Unfortunately the US patent and trademark system is broken and can be easily manipulated by entities with money, and when abused by assholes like this, it just makes our world suck even more. I hope their actions haunt these individuals for the rest of their hopefully short careers as business founders.
clarky07 14y ago
The names aren't even that similar. "Who's" is the trademark you are being assholes about? seriously? I can't see how they would stand a chance in court.
therandomguy 14y ago
All I want to know is, if I launch a location based app named "Around Here", will you sue me?
McKittrick 14y ago
what does your vc think about you spending part of your funding on lawyers to litigate a TM lawsuit against a Windows mobile developer?
khangtoh 14y ago
Still... I mean Who's Here and Who's Near Me are in no way similar as far as the TradeMark is in my opinion. Come on.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- taligent 14y ago
  Weird. They mean EXACTLY the same thing to me. "All the people who are in the vicinity of my current location"
  - khangtoh 14y ago
    TradeMark isn't about the meaning as far as I know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
  - hristov 14y ago
    What they mean is not that important. There are many trademarks out there that mean the same thing but relate to competing goods. What is important is whether a customer would confuse them. In my opinion that is clearly not the case. People aren't that stupid.
malachismith 14y ago
Weasels. Seriously.
jtreminio 14y ago
Great response. Very direct, with no vague language. Thank you for posting - now I'm looking at your app in a positive light!
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
revelation 14y ago
I don't get it. If you are the small bootstrapped ultra-busy startup founder, why continue to concern yourself with this stuff. He was willing to rebrand his app, even though the trademark registration was apparently not finalized at this point. So at which point did they feel entitled to make the demands they were making?
- taligent 14y ago
  As a startup your trademark/brand is one of the most valuable asset you have. Only inexperienced/naive startups don't defend it vigorously.
  - drumdance 14y ago
    Meh. If you have traction, that may be true, but the typical startup has nothing except a willingness to work hard.
  - reustle 14y ago
    Why? Very few people know you even exist. I'd think it's probably the best time of a companies lifetime to change the name if they had to.
pluies 14y ago
Let's do a kickstarter defence fund for WhosHere too and let the crowd decide! Bread and circuses.
- taligent 14y ago
  Wouldn't you much rather have people spend their money on better causes e.g. actually saving lives than pathetic disputes like this ?
  - tdfx 14y ago
    You must be new here.
    - entropy_ 14y ago
      This place is finally turning into slashdot! Oh joy...
      - tdfx 14y ago
        If you're too proud to be a part of an online community where memes are used then I'm afraid you're going to live quite a lonely existence. Also, since you literally are new here (account less than 3 months old), please check the guidelines: If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.)
  - kvnn 14y ago
    He was being sarcastic. It was funny.
BoudahTalenka 14y ago
They are patent trolls. The worst is that maybe they not even realize it.
- Gigablah 14y ago
  Trademarks and patents are two different things.
  - BoudahTalenka 14y ago
    Obviously. Let's say Trademarks trolls, I simply used their own term.
    - outworlder 14y ago
      If we are going down THAT road, it's "IP Trolls" then.
      - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
        I thought that Patent Trolls are the ones that just buy up patents and then go hunting to violators while they themselves do not actually make anything that uses the patents. That is shitty to do. I would imagine that Trademark Trolls and IP Trolls would be the same type of thing. This is not that. They have a Trademark on the product they are actively developing/selling/whatever and are trying to defend it. NOW... they are shit bags for thinking the other dude is violating their mark but that is a whole different thing.
    - taligent 14y ago
      How are they are a trademark troll for defending their trademark against a similar sounding name ?
    - ajasmin 14y ago
      Yes. WhosHere's answer starts with "We are not patent trolls". They should clearly change it to trademark. But really their gripe seems to be with borrowing the app concept which they agreed to. But they can only defend their trademark.
sol1_sc 14y ago
You made a decision to turn him down. He made a decision to turn you down. That part of it is not really at issue, in my opinion. You turned him down, he decided to do it on his own, and called it a different name. I don't think I would confuse the two. If he'd wanted to cash in on your TM (as said in the other thread) he wouldda called it simply "Who's Near". Changing the web address to wnmlive was a huge compromise in my opinion.
ericb 14y ago
I'm slightly more sympathetic having heard their side--there is more to it than just random legal threats out of the blue. ..BUT.. This suit revolves more around "we felt wronged" than "this clearly infringes our trademark." The only similarity in the trademark is the word "who." The law is the law, your feelings are irrelevant.
- clarkevans 14y ago
  Besides starting with the same keyword, Hear and Near have the same visual shape and sound almost identical. I think it's very similar, in my opinion, certainly enough to confuse a potential user. If you don't defend your trademark, you lose it.
  - jaems33 14y ago
    Not to mention that they can mean the same things in certain contexts. 'Clark Evans is near me, as he is in SoHo.' 'Clark Evans is here in SoHo.' I mean I have to think a bit harder in recalling who's who in this argument. Even the more popular case of Apple Corps v Apple Computer is more distinguishable.
- taligent 14y ago
  I don't think you understand how trademarks work. When you have two products in the same space with very similar names then you have a problem. And it is your obligation as the owner of a trademark to defend it.
  - pbreit 14y ago
    But the names are not that similar...certainly not similar enough from a trademark perspective.
jrockway 14y ago
We literally bet our life savings on this and years of zero vacations to bring WhosHere to where it is. Making a bad business decision and living a shitty life doesn't entitle you to sue people who make a similar app just because their app's name uses some of the same letters as your app's name. (Both companies picked crappy names that are poor brands and poor trademarks. It's like calling your hamburger shop "Hamburger Shop" and then suing anyone who sells hamburgers for trademark infringement. It's not their fault you picked a generic name.) Would you protect your company and its name? With the facts I've heard today, absolutely not. Taking a competitor to court is an absolute last resort, done only in the most egregious of cases (serious fraud that people are associating with your business, etc.) While the case has legal merits, it has zero ethical merits. You picked a generic name. The other guy picked a similar generic name. He is not trying to compete and is not negatively affecting your business. You are being jackasses. Making sacrifices to follow your dream does not give you the right to treat other people badly. You may be proud for the sacrifices you have made and the hard work you have put into your idea, but you deserve nothing for it. You're just another group of people equally good as every other group of people. Act like it.
- jsprinkles 14y ago
  In general, if you have a trademark and do not defend it, your lack of defending can be used against you later.
  - mathattack 14y ago
    True! It can't be arbitrary.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jrockway 14y ago
    That's true. But you don't have to send an extremely nasty letter with the two conditions, "give us all your assets and consult for us" or "be sued for $100,000". That's where my anger comes from. They could have said, "We think your name is similar to ours, and to ensure that we can defend our name in court in the future, we need you to license it from us for $1." But instead, they chose to be shit bags. (I could be wrong about the details, since the court docs are not loading for me. I will edit the "parts in quotes" about the two options if I am way off base.)
geuis 14y ago
Look, both your team and the other fellow involved in your dispute are in the wrong. And by wrong, I mean that you're both shaking your proverbial gender-specific parts around a crowded street, shouting about who's part is bigger, and trying to get the passersby to agree with your side or his. No. One. Cares. Put your shit away and handle this like men. Either reconcile or go to war, i.e. court. Just stop acting like you're still in high school and trying to win the who-likes-me-more popularity contest.
- Steko 14y ago
  These guys were being dragged through the mud in public and they got their side of the story out there. Are you really objecting to that? If it pains you to read it, I'd suggest not clicking.
  - jeza 14y ago
    They took it to court. That could just as easily be classified as dragging someone through the mud in public. That said I can't see either side being completely innocent. Now that they've taken it this far, it'd be in the interests of both sides to resolve it as quickly and gracefully as possible, preferably outside the courts. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
- slantyyz 14y ago
  > No. One. Cares. Sadly, 719 pts and 198 comments (as of now) and a top 3 ranking on the front page (for the other story) for several hours say otherwise. Everybody loves a David and Goliath story, and the one side of the story that was told first belonged to the little guy. It was quite fascinating to watch the anger and venom build up in the other thread - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055256 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055256. I don't have an opinion on who's right in this case, but I've always found that in most disputes, the truth ultimately lands somewhere in the middle.
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    > I've always found that in most disputes, the truth ultimately lands somewhere in the middle. Often, but I don't know - I've often found it to lie nowhere near either party...
alttab 14y ago
Sounds like both parties are young.
- drumdance 14y ago
  Yeah, these emails strike me as the kind of thing you write but don't send. I only learned the "don't send" part after a rather too many decisions to send.
anton000 14y ago
apparently according to Brian he has an obscene trust fund, so why didnt he lawyer up. Perhpas the mileage HN could bring + bad press he can bring about to a competitor was more enticing? https://whoshere.zendesk.com/attachments/token/v4qbuvns0xkiktv/?name=Re_-_WhosHere_v_SynergeTech_Solutions.pdf https://whoshere.zendesk.com/attachments/token/v4qbuvns0xkik...
- zainny 14y ago
  These emails are so strange. The tone taken by both parties is just so...unbelievable. For example, Brian's opening salvo "Neither of these options are remotely acceptable to me. It is also offensive to me that you would think my time was only worth $100/hr, considering I turn down requests offering 4 times that rate regularly." Seriously, "regularly" turning down offers for work at a rate of over $400/hr? And also, "I was born wealthy; I have an obscene trust fund. I assure you that if required, I will obtain the best legal representation for corporate litigation in the Silicon Valley." When I read the original blog post, it really tugs on the heart strings and makes Brian seem the underdog. Now after reading these emails, he comes across as a complete jackass.
  - harryh 14y ago
    Ya, very weird to see that trust fund line where in the blog post he says that he can't afford 10k to hire a lawyer and put a donation button up. I wonder which one is true?
    - duck 14y ago
      I'm only guessing, but I would say the latter is true and former a bluff.
  - tjic 14y ago
    > seriously, "regularly" turning down offers for work at a rate of over $400/hr? Yeah, that line stuck out like a store thumb.
    - 14y ago
dmak 14y ago
This definitely provides more insight, but this seems really childish and juvenile for two professionally competing products. Dropping the legal documents just seem like a huge dick move to me, especially on the smaller guy who does not have the resources fight back. It would have been nice for WhosHere to just play it out and continuing building a better product (especially if you have confidence in your product). If you want product segregation, then you should have chosen a less generic name. WhosHere ended up, at least, having Brian change his product name, and they are being sore losers for not getting what they expected.
dfc 14y ago
Someone should tell WhosHere that their pdf redaction is terribly ineffective...
- jack-r-abbit 14y ago
  haha... I just highlighted the text that was under the black out bar and was able to copy/paste it. FAIL!
yeahitsme72 14y ago
Something is missing here. Did Brian Hamacheck rename his app or not. One of the letters Brian says he will change it, but Who's Near Me is all over his website. Is this a case of he said he would do something then lied about it and is now surprised he's being sued? And I don't understand how they are stealing his work. They just asked for a name change. Then they offered to buy him out and share revenue. Why wouldn't he just change the name? Am I missing something?
- lathamcity 14y ago
  I was thinking that too, to me it's the big obvious elephant in the room in this HN discussion - he said he'd change the name and then didn't, or that's the impression I've gotten anyway.
domwood 14y ago
Quite frankly, from what I've read (the blog posts only), this seems like a pissing contest that's got out of hand. Each side should back down, stop trying to use the internet to throw poo at each other and work it out. Merge, settle or ignore each other and deal with it when there's a good reason to. Neither of you will lose money if you just compete. I agree with jrockway's points, especially on the sub par branding, they're both very standard names and that is literally your only problem. If you're all capable of starting up these companies, I'm sure you're capable of rebranding. Both companies should rebrand in my opinion, it's a matter of originality, which neither brand has and neither party has the moral ground to get litigious over.
- jakejake 14y ago
  It seems to me like this was all being done privately until Mr Hamacheck got a lot of attention and the wrath of HN on his side. I don't see how the other founders had much choice but to explain their side - otherwise they look like a cold, heartless corporation. The original story seemed very much like a guy trying to run a business was blindsided by a huge, funded company. But after the response it seems clear that he had been communicating with them and even proposing business relationships before even launching his product. My opinion of the situation was definitely changed after this response letter. It kinda goes to show that these kind of arguments make everybody involved look bad, though.
  - domwood 14y ago
    Oh indeed. I think we tend to default to defence of the "little guy", even without enough information to make informed judgements. I certainly made the mistake of jumping to conclusions here. Personally, I have little-to-no time for either party's argument, as it's a rather banal fight anyway.
dbkbali 14y ago
Reading between the lines given the complete lack of similarity between the names, it seems to me you are grasping at straws because your own business model is not viable. If I were an investor, I would really question the sustainability of your startup given you are having to use vc money to shut down competitors as opposed to building constructively a sustainable business. Just my 2 cents.
- yeahitsme72 14y ago
  Um, WhosHere has over 5 million downloads I don't think they asked them to change their name to save their business model.
  - dbkbali 14y ago
    Since when has number of free downloads in the app store been a measure of business model viability? The fact is they are pursuing destructive means to grow their business, as an investor I would much prefer to have founders who were investing my monies in a constructive way especially given the generic and dissimilar app names. I mean how good a product do they have if they feel that the name of their competitors app is having such a material impact on their business?
binarydud 14y ago
I find it interesting that the in his post, Brian insinuates that he can't afford to fight this legal battle. However, in the emails between him and the WhosHere people he talks about his large trust fund.
stickfigure 14y ago
There are two issues that come to mind when I decide how much sympathy to allocate: 1) Is the trademark sufficiently unique to have merit? 2) Is the infringing trademark similar enough to cause confusion? I'll give WhosHere a pass on #1. It's a poorly-chosen trademark but I've seen worse. However, nobody can claim with a straight face that customers are confusing WhosNearMe for WhosHere. This is preposterous on its face. This jury finds for the defendant.
biot 14y ago
Brian's blog posting (now with a donation button): "... the deadline to file a response to the lawsuit had passed and that WhosHere had requested a motion for default judgment (meaning that they would automatically receive everything they had asked for - which would effectively bankrupt me..." "The lawyers I have spoken to thus far are asking me for at least a $10,000 retainer just to get started on the process and I don't have those kind of resources laying around." Compare to Brian's response in the email thread: "I was born wealthy; I have an obscene trust fund. I assure you that if required, I will obtain the best legal representation for corporate litigation in the Silicon Valley. After your last proposal, I will resist this legal action well beyond what makes any financial sense, simply out of principal." And, to complement this, a snippet from Judd Weiss' blog [0]: "Quick tip: When you do engage the other side (or their lawyer), whatever you do, never say the line “I’m taking this all the way to trial, I don’t care what this costs me”. Everyone says that. Everyone. That doesn’t work with someone like me. I smell blood. “Oh really, you don’t care what this costs you? Alright then, let’s find out how much you really don’t care.” People who say they don’t care about the costs often cave sooner, because they are showing that they’re weak. They’re showing that they really don’t have much solid to fight you with except their loudly stated tolerance for pain. That tolerance is easy to test. And it’s usually very low when there’s not much else but puffery to back it up. Any modestly wise person cares about the financial effects of litigation. Don’t try to pretend you’re stupid, or else you’re going to look stupid." [0] http://hustlebear.com/2010/12/14/how-to-handle-lawyers-threatening-you/ http://hustlebear.com/2010/12/14/how-to-handle-lawyers-threa...
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  Someone's clearly been reading his Art of War.
jack-r-abbit 14y ago
Seriously... they are not the same. When I think "Who's here?" I think who is in the same place I am. Not just near me. If I am home and someone comes to my house... they are here. If I am home and someone goes to the house across the street... they are near me... but not here. If "Who's Here" and "Who's Near Me" are close enough to cause a problem... someone needs to warn Facebook that their new app Camera is pretty friggin' close to the app that Apple already had. What was that called? Oh right... CAMERA.
- lathamcity 14y ago
  Apple doesn't have a trademark on "Camera"
  - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
    Probably because it is too generic (well... a specific but general use word)... kind of like this situation. The real idiots here are the ones that granted this trademark in the first place. Plus it was a bit of a joke.
  - simonster 14y ago
    Well, Yahoo has a trademark on "Yahoo! Buzz", but that doesn't mean someone else couldn't go out and make a product called "Google Buzz", because they did. And "Buzz" seems like far less generic a word than "Who".
ricardobeat 14y ago
I assume WhosAround, WhosThere, WhosClose, WhosComing and WhosUpMyAss are also trademark infringements?
- tjic 14y ago
  > WhosUpMyAss are also trademark infringements? No, actually, that one is free. Show us what you can do with it! ;-)
- jimboyoungblood 14y ago
  yup. i made an iphone app named WhosAround a few years ago and got sued by the WhosHere guys. Just Google "myRete lawsuit" (myRete is their corporate name)
newobj 14y ago
A slap fight over an awful trademark.
- checker659 14y ago
  Couldn't upvote your comment enough.
  - domwood 14y ago
    Did it for you.
- AznHisoka 14y ago
  Seriously, I read both articles, and you put a gun in my head, and I'd tell you I still can't tell you the names of these 2 apps. Who's where? Who's here? Where's Waldo? Who cares? Such generic names, no branding.
  - jrockway 14y ago
    +1 I now want to release an app called "who cares that I'm near them" that will just display an empty list.
spullara 14y ago
Who's Here and Who's Near Me are different names. Get over it.
trustfundbaby 14y ago
You know what seems weird to me? the fact that at first they turned down this (alleged) offer to integrate a windows mobile version of the app into their version and then just a few years later "Just a few weeks ago, we offered to partner with Mr. Hamachek. We offered to integrate his Windows Mobile work into WhosHere and offered a revenue share deal for $100,000, plus fees, for ongoing development" something smells wrong.
- jcc80 14y ago
  It appears he was able to get some traction and they started to salivate thinking about picking off those users on the cheap.
gaker 14y ago
Honestly, I find it rather deplorable that they would post this. Regardless of any bad press they have, if they win in the end, the truth would come out. The first thing most lawyers would say is "keep your mouth shut". Posting this doesn't do anything but make this pissing match all the more public. I hope they can stay classy.
lathamcity 14y ago
I'm siding with WhosHere on this one (although it doesn't matter). Here's why. First, they asked Brian to change the name from "Who's Near Me" to something else, and he apparently agreed to, but his rebranding was to "WNM (Who's Near Me) Live" which is basically the same thing except that "Who's Near Me" is written smaller and acronym-ized in the brand. But it's still the same name. Second, a lot of people are talking about how the name is generic. That's exactly the point. When you're using your phone and see "Who's Here", you think, this will tell me who's here. If there's another app that's called "Who's Near Me", you think the same thing. So it's more than just them both having the word 'who'. It's more like if one app were called "Shoelaces" that tied your shoelaces for you, and then another app named itself "Tie Your Shoelaces" and did the same thing. It's, people will look at this app and know that this is what they use to tie their shoelaces, a trademark should prevent another app from being able to do that. Third, "It is also offensive to me that you would think my time was only worth $100/hr, considering I turn down requests offering 4 times that rate regularly". I'm tired of the fake arrogance in C.S. culture. Brian's 26, I don't think he regularly gets offers for $400 an hour, and even if he did there's no reason to put it in that e-mail. This is impersonal and based on limited information.
- jack-r-abbit 14y ago
  > I'm tired of the fake arrogance in C.S. culture I thought the same thing when the opening sentence of his blog post mentioned he had been coded since age 7. I have no reason to believe or not believe that point. But I don't see how that has anything to do with the problem he was about to outline in his blog. Apparently he has a huge trust fund... he could have opened with that. But I'm still in the "they're generic enough that this shouldn't be a problem" camp.
  - slantyyz 14y ago
    The problem with e-mail is that people often don't take a step back before replying, especially when they're angry. That usually results in long, ranty emails that can be all over the place.
  - PakG1 14y ago
valuegram 14y ago
As my good friend (a lawyer) says... There are three sides to every argument. Your side, my side, and the truth.
nickler 14y ago
Clearly, no one wins from this ridiculous exchange. All parties involved need to man up, get in a boardroom and bang out a deal. Prior to that, they should both delete these posts and same themselves further embarrassment. Agreements are hard to make sometimes, and compromise sucks, but the ramifications of spending time on crap like this instead of building your business is massive. Best of luck to both parties, here's hoping they can put the egos aside long enough to do some business.
mcantelon 14y ago
Social media startup douchebag fight club plz.
3pt14159 14y ago
I don't care how immature Brian is (and boy is he immature) the fact of the matter is there is no basis for the aggression that WhosHere put forth. Brian is a douche for not sharing the whole story. He is a douche for saying he could make 400 an hour. He is a douche for pretending that he can't fight a suit when he can. But the fucking fact of the matter is that he is right. WhosHere is not confusing with the stupid ass name Brian choose. Period. I don't like siding with the asshole cousin, but sometimes the asshole is right.
- blueben 14y ago
  How about we let a court decide whether or not this is Trademark infringement instead.
- cabalamat 14y ago
  > Brian is a douche [...] But the fucking fact of the matter is that he is right. Speaking personally, I'd be reluctant to have a business relationship with either party in this dispute.
- 3pt14159 14y ago
  Consider that I deleted the parent comment since I can no longer delete it. A friend of mine is in a similar situation and I got overly angry.
vasco 14y ago
The only thing I like about this is the fact that they "censored" out the email addresses at the bottom but you can still hover & click on them. :)
btipling 14y ago
Whatever damage or confusion Who's Near Me might have caused to your brand, this lawsuit has done worse. Ever heard of the Streisand effect? Even if you did have a valid claim your demands were way over the top. Thousands of dollars in legal fees? Give up his Facebook page? For what it is worth I personally want absolutely nothing to do with your app ever, and will tell people about your bad ways if they bring up your app. I hope your business fails because actions like this do not deserve to be rewarded.
dllthomas 14y ago
Does anyone else think "hoosier" when they read "WhosHere"? They don't seem to be from Indiana, though.
amirhirsch 14y ago
tldr; WhosHere is wrong, and Brian is asking for donations despite an "obscene trust fund" Moral of the story: don't waste your CS degrees on SoLoMo apps.
jtchang 14y ago
I have a new app. It's called "Who's Around Me".
- exogen 14y ago
  Just made one named Who's Near Here. Expect to hear from my lawyer.
evancaine 14y ago
I find it interesting that the comments in this thread still largely support Brian Hamacheck even though the response from Who's Here - if accurate - demonstrates that his original blog post is little more than a one sided publicity piece designed to gain sympathy for him and. to villify. Who's Here
evancaine 14y ago
I find it interesting that the comments in this thread still largely support Brian Hamacheck even though the response from Who's Here - if accurate - demonstrates that his original blog post is little more than a one sided publicity piece designed to gain sympathy for him and. to villify. Who's Here
davycro 14y ago
Shame on Brian for claiming to be a poor developer about to be crushed by a big company (see quote below). I feel like a fool for up voting him. Shame on WhosHere for suing Brian. People are not confusing these two apps. Brian did not steal the WhosHere brand or product. Here's an example of stealing a product, of when it's appropriate to sue: My Facebook app Quiz Monster was cloned by mike onagai (a man from hong kong). He copy pasted my CSS and JavaScript. His app looked exactly like mine. He then started emailing my users with links to his site, claiming to be me. Appbank (a vc funded company) almost did the same thing, they definitely stole my design. The only reason I did not sue is because my product was better and more popular. They didn't seem like a threat. Nowadays I think facebook apps are silly. It must seriously suck to be Appbank or Mike Onagai. They have to make Facebook apps, I get to build whatever I feel like. Also I think stealing fuels innovation. Facebook came from facesmash, a clone of hotornot. So did YouTube. Appbank started as a clone of quiz monster, but they evolved into something better, something original, and innovative. I'm happy for them. > "I was born wealthy; I have an obscene trust fund. I assure you that if required, I will obtain the best legal representationmfor corporate litigation in the Silicon Valley. After your last proposal, I will resist this legal action well beyondmwhat makes any financial sense, simply out of principal."
brianhama 14y ago
For what it's worth, here is my response to all the comments: http://brianhama.com/my-answer-to-all-the-questions-since-whoshere http://brianhama.com/my-answer-to-all-the-questions-since-wh...
dave1619 14y ago
Who's Here (WhosHere) and Who's Near Me are two totally different names. What's the same? Just "Who". Here and Near Me are very different. Anybody else agree with me?
koeselitz 14y ago
It seems like the best outcome here would be if both companies chose better, more accurate names. I was thinking maybe "WhosAnOverLitigiousFounder" and "WhosAHyperAggressiveConcernTroll."
blueben 14y ago
Ah, someone here doesn't like my opinion and thusly is downvoting every comment I've ever made. It's been quite a while since I was around HN, but I'm very disappointed. Is suggesting that perhaps letting a Judge decide these legal matters such a bad idea?
heretohelp 14y ago
Can we settle this Notch-style with a Quake match?
bcurdy 14y ago
I've found another company for Whoshere to sue!! They should go full speed after those guys: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/whos-hiding-preschool/id396335703?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/whos-hiding-preschool/id39633...
its_so_on 14y ago
After reading the original, it's obvious that this response is complete bullshit. "and offered a revenue share deal for $100,000, plus fees, for ongoing development (that is where the license agreement that Mr. Hamacheck references comes into play, but he left this upside out of his blog post). We truly expected a counter offer. But, when he rejected the offer outright, we asked him what he thought was fair. We never received a response." Meaning: We offered him a "deal" worth $100,000. It was only after he refused that we put the hit out.

222 points by nphase 14y ago

Their trademark probably shouldn't have been granted. This company didn't trademark the word "Who", they trademarked "WhosHere" which is quite obviously a different word. This reminds me of McDonald's who go around the world suing every company that has a food product starting with "Mc" (eg. a Scotch distillery founded a hundred years before McDonald's even got sued). Unfortunately the US patent and trademark system is broken and can be easily manipulated by entities with money, and when abused by assholes like this, it just makes our world suck even more. I hope their actions haunt these individuals for the rest of their hopefully short careers as business founders.

clarky07 14y ago

The names aren't even that similar. "Who's" is the trademark you are being assholes about? seriously? I can't see how they would stand a chance in court.

therandomguy 14y ago

All I want to know is, if I launch a location based app named "Around Here", will you sue me?

McKittrick 14y ago

what does your vc think about you spending part of your funding on lawyers to litigate a TM lawsuit against a Windows mobile developer?

khangtoh 14y ago

Still... I mean Who's Here and Who's Near Me are in no way similar as far as the TradeMark is in my opinion. Come on.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
taligent 14y ago
Weird. They mean EXACTLY the same thing to me. "All the people who are in the vicinity of my current location"
- khangtoh 14y ago
  TradeMark isn't about the meaning as far as I know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
- hristov 14y ago
  What they mean is not that important. There are many trademarks out there that mean the same thing but relate to competing goods. What is important is whether a customer would confuse them. In my opinion that is clearly not the case. People aren't that stupid.

malachismith 14y ago

Weasels. Seriously.

jtreminio 14y ago

Great response. Very direct, with no vague language. Thank you for posting - now I'm looking at your app in a positive light!

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

revelation 14y ago

I don't get it. If you are the small bootstrapped ultra-busy startup founder, why continue to concern yourself with this stuff. He was willing to rebrand his app, even though the trademark registration was apparently not finalized at this point. So at which point did they feel entitled to make the demands they were making?

taligent 14y ago
As a startup your trademark/brand is one of the most valuable asset you have. Only inexperienced/naive startups don't defend it vigorously.
- drumdance 14y ago
  Meh. If you have traction, that may be true, but the typical startup has nothing except a willingness to work hard.
- reustle 14y ago
  Why? Very few people know you even exist. I'd think it's probably the best time of a companies lifetime to change the name if they had to.

pluies 14y ago

Let's do a kickstarter defence fund for WhosHere too and let the crowd decide! Bread and circuses.

taligent 14y ago
Wouldn't you much rather have people spend their money on better causes e.g. actually saving lives than pathetic disputes like this ?
- tdfx 14y ago
  You must be new here.
  - entropy_ 14y ago
    This place is finally turning into slashdot! Oh joy...
    - tdfx 14y ago
      If you're too proud to be a part of an online community where memes are used then I'm afraid you're going to live quite a lonely existence. Also, since you literally are new here (account less than 3 months old), please check the guidelines: If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.)
- kvnn 14y ago
  He was being sarcastic. It was funny.

BoudahTalenka 14y ago

They are patent trolls. The worst is that maybe they not even realize it.

Gigablah 14y ago
Trademarks and patents are two different things.
- BoudahTalenka 14y ago
  Obviously. Let's say Trademarks trolls, I simply used their own term.
  - outworlder 14y ago
    If we are going down THAT road, it's "IP Trolls" then.
    - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
      I thought that Patent Trolls are the ones that just buy up patents and then go hunting to violators while they themselves do not actually make anything that uses the patents. That is shitty to do. I would imagine that Trademark Trolls and IP Trolls would be the same type of thing. This is not that. They have a Trademark on the product they are actively developing/selling/whatever and are trying to defend it. NOW... they are shit bags for thinking the other dude is violating their mark but that is a whole different thing.
  - taligent 14y ago
    How are they are a trademark troll for defending their trademark against a similar sounding name ?
  - ajasmin 14y ago
    Yes. WhosHere's answer starts with "We are not patent trolls". They should clearly change it to trademark. But really their gripe seems to be with borrowing the app concept which they agreed to. But they can only defend their trademark.

sol1_sc 14y ago

You made a decision to turn him down. He made a decision to turn you down. That part of it is not really at issue, in my opinion. You turned him down, he decided to do it on his own, and called it a different name. I don't think I would confuse the two. If he'd wanted to cash in on your TM (as said in the other thread) he wouldda called it simply "Who's Near". Changing the web address to wnmlive was a huge compromise in my opinion.

ericb 14y ago

I'm slightly more sympathetic having heard their side--there is more to it than just random legal threats out of the blue. ..BUT.. This suit revolves more around "we felt wronged" than "this clearly infringes our trademark." The only similarity in the trademark is the word "who." The law is the law, your feelings are irrelevant.

clarkevans 14y ago
Besides starting with the same keyword, Hear and Near have the same visual shape and sound almost identical. I think it's very similar, in my opinion, certainly enough to confuse a potential user. If you don't defend your trademark, you lose it.
- jaems33 14y ago
  Not to mention that they can mean the same things in certain contexts. 'Clark Evans is near me, as he is in SoHo.' 'Clark Evans is here in SoHo.' I mean I have to think a bit harder in recalling who's who in this argument. Even the more popular case of Apple Corps v Apple Computer is more distinguishable.
taligent 14y ago
I don't think you understand how trademarks work. When you have two products in the same space with very similar names then you have a problem. And it is your obligation as the owner of a trademark to defend it.
- pbreit 14y ago
  But the names are not that similar...certainly not similar enough from a trademark perspective.

jrockway 14y ago

We literally bet our life savings on this and years of zero vacations to bring WhosHere to where it is. Making a bad business decision and living a shitty life doesn't entitle you to sue people who make a similar app just because their app's name uses some of the same letters as your app's name. (Both companies picked crappy names that are poor brands and poor trademarks. It's like calling your hamburger shop "Hamburger Shop" and then suing anyone who sells hamburgers for trademark infringement. It's not their fault you picked a generic name.) Would you protect your company and its name? With the facts I've heard today, absolutely not. Taking a competitor to court is an absolute last resort, done only in the most egregious of cases (serious fraud that people are associating with your business, etc.) While the case has legal merits, it has zero ethical merits. You picked a generic name. The other guy picked a similar generic name. He is not trying to compete and is not negatively affecting your business. You are being jackasses. Making sacrifices to follow your dream does not give you the right to treat other people badly. You may be proud for the sacrifices you have made and the hard work you have put into your idea, but you deserve nothing for it. You're just another group of people equally good as every other group of people. Act like it.

jsprinkles 14y ago
In general, if you have a trademark and do not defend it, your lack of defending can be used against you later.
- mathattack 14y ago
  True! It can't be arbitrary.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jrockway 14y ago
  That's true. But you don't have to send an extremely nasty letter with the two conditions, "give us all your assets and consult for us" or "be sued for $100,000". That's where my anger comes from. They could have said, "We think your name is similar to ours, and to ensure that we can defend our name in court in the future, we need you to license it from us for $1." But instead, they chose to be shit bags. (I could be wrong about the details, since the court docs are not loading for me. I will edit the "parts in quotes" about the two options if I am way off base.)

geuis 14y ago

Look, both your team and the other fellow involved in your dispute are in the wrong. And by wrong, I mean that you're both shaking your proverbial gender-specific parts around a crowded street, shouting about who's part is bigger, and trying to get the passersby to agree with your side or his. No. One. Cares. Put your shit away and handle this like men. Either reconcile or go to war, i.e. court. Just stop acting like you're still in high school and trying to win the who-likes-me-more popularity contest.

Steko 14y ago
These guys were being dragged through the mud in public and they got their side of the story out there. Are you really objecting to that? If it pains you to read it, I'd suggest not clicking.
- jeza 14y ago
  They took it to court. That could just as easily be classified as dragging someone through the mud in public. That said I can't see either side being completely innocent. Now that they've taken it this far, it'd be in the interests of both sides to resolve it as quickly and gracefully as possible, preferably outside the courts. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
slantyyz 14y ago
> No. One. Cares. Sadly, 719 pts and 198 comments (as of now) and a top 3 ranking on the front page (for the other story) for several hours say otherwise. Everybody loves a David and Goliath story, and the one side of the story that was told first belonged to the little guy. It was quite fascinating to watch the anger and venom build up in the other thread - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055256 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055256. I don't have an opinion on who's right in this case, but I've always found that in most disputes, the truth ultimately lands somewhere in the middle.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  > I've always found that in most disputes, the truth ultimately lands somewhere in the middle. Often, but I don't know - I've often found it to lie nowhere near either party...

alttab 14y ago

Sounds like both parties are young.

drumdance 14y ago
Yeah, these emails strike me as the kind of thing you write but don't send. I only learned the "don't send" part after a rather too many decisions to send.

anton000 14y ago

apparently according to Brian he has an obscene trust fund, so why didnt he lawyer up. Perhpas the mileage HN could bring + bad press he can bring about to a competitor was more enticing? https://whoshere.zendesk.com/attachments/token/v4qbuvns0xkiktv/?name=Re_-_WhosHere_v_SynergeTech_Solutions.pdf https://whoshere.zendesk.com/attachments/token/v4qbuvns0xkik...

zainny 14y ago
These emails are so strange. The tone taken by both parties is just so...unbelievable. For example, Brian's opening salvo "Neither of these options are remotely acceptable to me. It is also offensive to me that you would think my time was only worth $100/hr, considering I turn down requests offering 4 times that rate regularly." Seriously, "regularly" turning down offers for work at a rate of over $400/hr? And also, "I was born wealthy; I have an obscene trust fund. I assure you that if required, I will obtain the best legal representation for corporate litigation in the Silicon Valley." When I read the original blog post, it really tugs on the heart strings and makes Brian seem the underdog. Now after reading these emails, he comes across as a complete jackass.
- harryh 14y ago
  Ya, very weird to see that trust fund line where in the blog post he says that he can't afford 10k to hire a lawyer and put a donation button up. I wonder which one is true?
  - duck 14y ago
    I'm only guessing, but I would say the latter is true and former a bluff.
- tjic 14y ago
  > seriously, "regularly" turning down offers for work at a rate of over $400/hr? Yeah, that line stuck out like a store thumb.
  - 14y ago

dmak 14y ago

This definitely provides more insight, but this seems really childish and juvenile for two professionally competing products. Dropping the legal documents just seem like a huge dick move to me, especially on the smaller guy who does not have the resources fight back. It would have been nice for WhosHere to just play it out and continuing building a better product (especially if you have confidence in your product). If you want product segregation, then you should have chosen a less generic name. WhosHere ended up, at least, having Brian change his product name, and they are being sore losers for not getting what they expected.

dfc 14y ago

Someone should tell WhosHere that their pdf redaction is terribly ineffective...

jack-r-abbit 14y ago
haha... I just highlighted the text that was under the black out bar and was able to copy/paste it. FAIL!

yeahitsme72 14y ago

Something is missing here. Did Brian Hamacheck rename his app or not. One of the letters Brian says he will change it, but Who's Near Me is all over his website. Is this a case of he said he would do something then lied about it and is now surprised he's being sued? And I don't understand how they are stealing his work. They just asked for a name change. Then they offered to buy him out and share revenue. Why wouldn't he just change the name? Am I missing something?

lathamcity 14y ago
I was thinking that too, to me it's the big obvious elephant in the room in this HN discussion - he said he'd change the name and then didn't, or that's the impression I've gotten anyway.

domwood 14y ago

Quite frankly, from what I've read (the blog posts only), this seems like a pissing contest that's got out of hand. Each side should back down, stop trying to use the internet to throw poo at each other and work it out. Merge, settle or ignore each other and deal with it when there's a good reason to. Neither of you will lose money if you just compete. I agree with jrockway's points, especially on the sub par branding, they're both very standard names and that is literally your only problem. If you're all capable of starting up these companies, I'm sure you're capable of rebranding. Both companies should rebrand in my opinion, it's a matter of originality, which neither brand has and neither party has the moral ground to get litigious over.

jakejake 14y ago
It seems to me like this was all being done privately until Mr Hamacheck got a lot of attention and the wrath of HN on his side. I don't see how the other founders had much choice but to explain their side - otherwise they look like a cold, heartless corporation. The original story seemed very much like a guy trying to run a business was blindsided by a huge, funded company. But after the response it seems clear that he had been communicating with them and even proposing business relationships before even launching his product. My opinion of the situation was definitely changed after this response letter. It kinda goes to show that these kind of arguments make everybody involved look bad, though.
- domwood 14y ago
  Oh indeed. I think we tend to default to defence of the "little guy", even without enough information to make informed judgements. I certainly made the mistake of jumping to conclusions here. Personally, I have little-to-no time for either party's argument, as it's a rather banal fight anyway.

dbkbali 14y ago

Reading between the lines given the complete lack of similarity between the names, it seems to me you are grasping at straws because your own business model is not viable. If I were an investor, I would really question the sustainability of your startup given you are having to use vc money to shut down competitors as opposed to building constructively a sustainable business. Just my 2 cents.

yeahitsme72 14y ago
Um, WhosHere has over 5 million downloads I don't think they asked them to change their name to save their business model.
- dbkbali 14y ago
  Since when has number of free downloads in the app store been a measure of business model viability? The fact is they are pursuing destructive means to grow their business, as an investor I would much prefer to have founders who were investing my monies in a constructive way especially given the generic and dissimilar app names. I mean how good a product do they have if they feel that the name of their competitors app is having such a material impact on their business?

binarydud 14y ago

I find it interesting that the in his post, Brian insinuates that he can't afford to fight this legal battle. However, in the emails between him and the WhosHere people he talks about his large trust fund.

stickfigure 14y ago

There are two issues that come to mind when I decide how much sympathy to allocate: 1) Is the trademark sufficiently unique to have merit? 2) Is the infringing trademark similar enough to cause confusion? I'll give WhosHere a pass on #1. It's a poorly-chosen trademark but I've seen worse. However, nobody can claim with a straight face that customers are confusing WhosNearMe for WhosHere. This is preposterous on its face. This jury finds for the defendant.

biot 14y ago

Brian's blog posting (now with a donation button): "... the deadline to file a response to the lawsuit had passed and that WhosHere had requested a motion for default judgment (meaning that they would automatically receive everything they had asked for - which would effectively bankrupt me..." "The lawyers I have spoken to thus far are asking me for at least a $10,000 retainer just to get started on the process and I don't have those kind of resources laying around." Compare to Brian's response in the email thread: "I was born wealthy; I have an obscene trust fund. I assure you that if required, I will obtain the best legal representation for corporate litigation in the Silicon Valley. After your last proposal, I will resist this legal action well beyond what makes any financial sense, simply out of principal." And, to complement this, a snippet from Judd Weiss' blog [0]: "Quick tip: When you do engage the other side (or their lawyer), whatever you do, never say the line “I’m taking this all the way to trial, I don’t care what this costs me”. Everyone says that. Everyone. That doesn’t work with someone like me. I smell blood. “Oh really, you don’t care what this costs you? Alright then, let’s find out how much you really don’t care.” People who say they don’t care about the costs often cave sooner, because they are showing that they’re weak. They’re showing that they really don’t have much solid to fight you with except their loudly stated tolerance for pain. That tolerance is easy to test. And it’s usually very low when there’s not much else but puffery to back it up. Any modestly wise person cares about the financial effects of litigation. Don’t try to pretend you’re stupid, or else you’re going to look stupid." [0] http://hustlebear.com/2010/12/14/how-to-handle-lawyers-threatening-you/ http://hustlebear.com/2010/12/14/how-to-handle-lawyers-threa...

dredmorbius 14y ago
Someone's clearly been reading his Art of War.

jack-r-abbit 14y ago

Seriously... they are not the same. When I think "Who's here?" I think who is in the same place I am. Not just near me. If I am home and someone comes to my house... they are here. If I am home and someone goes to the house across the street... they are near me... but not here. If "Who's Here" and "Who's Near Me" are close enough to cause a problem... someone needs to warn Facebook that their new app Camera is pretty friggin' close to the app that Apple already had. What was that called? Oh right... CAMERA.

lathamcity 14y ago
Apple doesn't have a trademark on "Camera"
- jack-r-abbit 14y ago
  Probably because it is too generic (well... a specific but general use word)... kind of like this situation. The real idiots here are the ones that granted this trademark in the first place. Plus it was a bit of a joke.
- simonster 14y ago
  Well, Yahoo has a trademark on "Yahoo! Buzz", but that doesn't mean someone else couldn't go out and make a product called "Google Buzz", because they did. And "Buzz" seems like far less generic a word than "Who".

ricardobeat 14y ago

I assume WhosAround, WhosThere, WhosClose, WhosComing and WhosUpMyAss are also trademark infringements?

tjic 14y ago
> WhosUpMyAss are also trademark infringements? No, actually, that one is free. Show us what you can do with it! ;-)
jimboyoungblood 14y ago
yup. i made an iphone app named WhosAround a few years ago and got sued by the WhosHere guys. Just Google "myRete lawsuit" (myRete is their corporate name)

newobj 14y ago

A slap fight over an awful trademark.

checker659 14y ago
Couldn't upvote your comment enough.
- domwood 14y ago
  Did it for you.
AznHisoka 14y ago
Seriously, I read both articles, and you put a gun in my head, and I'd tell you I still can't tell you the names of these 2 apps. Who's where? Who's here? Where's Waldo? Who cares? Such generic names, no branding.
- jrockway 14y ago
  +1 I now want to release an app called "who cares that I'm near them" that will just display an empty list.

spullara 14y ago

Who's Here and Who's Near Me are different names. Get over it.

trustfundbaby 14y ago

You know what seems weird to me? the fact that at first they turned down this (alleged) offer to integrate a windows mobile version of the app into their version and then just a few years later "Just a few weeks ago, we offered to partner with Mr. Hamachek. We offered to integrate his Windows Mobile work into WhosHere and offered a revenue share deal for $100,000, plus fees, for ongoing development" something smells wrong.

jcc80 14y ago
It appears he was able to get some traction and they started to salivate thinking about picking off those users on the cheap.

gaker 14y ago

Honestly, I find it rather deplorable that they would post this. Regardless of any bad press they have, if they win in the end, the truth would come out. The first thing most lawyers would say is "keep your mouth shut". Posting this doesn't do anything but make this pissing match all the more public. I hope they can stay classy.

lathamcity 14y ago

I'm siding with WhosHere on this one (although it doesn't matter). Here's why. First, they asked Brian to change the name from "Who's Near Me" to something else, and he apparently agreed to, but his rebranding was to "WNM (Who's Near Me) Live" which is basically the same thing except that "Who's Near Me" is written smaller and acronym-ized in the brand. But it's still the same name. Second, a lot of people are talking about how the name is generic. That's exactly the point. When you're using your phone and see "Who's Here", you think, this will tell me who's here. If there's another app that's called "Who's Near Me", you think the same thing. So it's more than just them both having the word 'who'. It's more like if one app were called "Shoelaces" that tied your shoelaces for you, and then another app named itself "Tie Your Shoelaces" and did the same thing. It's, people will look at this app and know that this is what they use to tie their shoelaces, a trademark should prevent another app from being able to do that. Third, "It is also offensive to me that you would think my time was only worth $100/hr, considering I turn down requests offering 4 times that rate regularly". I'm tired of the fake arrogance in C.S. culture. Brian's 26, I don't think he regularly gets offers for $400 an hour, and even if he did there's no reason to put it in that e-mail. This is impersonal and based on limited information.

jack-r-abbit 14y ago
> I'm tired of the fake arrogance in C.S. culture I thought the same thing when the opening sentence of his blog post mentioned he had been coded since age 7. I have no reason to believe or not believe that point. But I don't see how that has anything to do with the problem he was about to outline in his blog. Apparently he has a huge trust fund... he could have opened with that. But I'm still in the "they're generic enough that this shouldn't be a problem" camp.
- slantyyz 14y ago
  The problem with e-mail is that people often don't take a step back before replying, especially when they're angry. That usually results in long, ranty emails that can be all over the place.
- PakG1 14y ago

valuegram 14y ago

As my good friend (a lawyer) says... There are three sides to every argument. Your side, my side, and the truth.

nickler 14y ago

Clearly, no one wins from this ridiculous exchange. All parties involved need to man up, get in a boardroom and bang out a deal. Prior to that, they should both delete these posts and same themselves further embarrassment. Agreements are hard to make sometimes, and compromise sucks, but the ramifications of spending time on crap like this instead of building your business is massive. Best of luck to both parties, here's hoping they can put the egos aside long enough to do some business.

mcantelon 14y ago

Social media startup douchebag fight club plz.

3pt14159 14y ago

I don't care how immature Brian is (and boy is he immature) the fact of the matter is there is no basis for the aggression that WhosHere put forth. Brian is a douche for not sharing the whole story. He is a douche for saying he could make 400 an hour. He is a douche for pretending that he can't fight a suit when he can. But the fucking fact of the matter is that he is right. WhosHere is not confusing with the stupid ass name Brian choose. Period. I don't like siding with the asshole cousin, but sometimes the asshole is right.

blueben 14y ago
How about we let a court decide whether or not this is Trademark infringement instead.
cabalamat 14y ago
> Brian is a douche [...] But the fucking fact of the matter is that he is right. Speaking personally, I'd be reluctant to have a business relationship with either party in this dispute.
3pt14159 14y ago
Consider that I deleted the parent comment since I can no longer delete it. A friend of mine is in a similar situation and I got overly angry.

vasco 14y ago

The only thing I like about this is the fact that they "censored" out the email addresses at the bottom but you can still hover & click on them. :)

btipling 14y ago

Whatever damage or confusion Who's Near Me might have caused to your brand, this lawsuit has done worse. Ever heard of the Streisand effect? Even if you did have a valid claim your demands were way over the top. Thousands of dollars in legal fees? Give up his Facebook page? For what it is worth I personally want absolutely nothing to do with your app ever, and will tell people about your bad ways if they bring up your app. I hope your business fails because actions like this do not deserve to be rewarded.

dllthomas 14y ago

Does anyone else think "hoosier" when they read "WhosHere"? They don't seem to be from Indiana, though.

amirhirsch 14y ago

tldr; WhosHere is wrong, and Brian is asking for donations despite an "obscene trust fund" Moral of the story: don't waste your CS degrees on SoLoMo apps.

jtchang 14y ago

I have a new app. It's called "Who's Around Me".

exogen 14y ago
Just made one named Who's Near Here. Expect to hear from my lawyer.

evancaine 14y ago

I find it interesting that the comments in this thread still largely support Brian Hamacheck even though the response from Who's Here - if accurate - demonstrates that his original blog post is little more than a one sided publicity piece designed to gain sympathy for him and. to villify. Who's Here

evancaine 14y ago

davycro 14y ago

Shame on Brian for claiming to be a poor developer about to be crushed by a big company (see quote below). I feel like a fool for up voting him. Shame on WhosHere for suing Brian. People are not confusing these two apps. Brian did not steal the WhosHere brand or product. Here's an example of stealing a product, of when it's appropriate to sue: My Facebook app Quiz Monster was cloned by mike onagai (a man from hong kong). He copy pasted my CSS and JavaScript. His app looked exactly like mine. He then started emailing my users with links to his site, claiming to be me. Appbank (a vc funded company) almost did the same thing, they definitely stole my design. The only reason I did not sue is because my product was better and more popular. They didn't seem like a threat. Nowadays I think facebook apps are silly. It must seriously suck to be Appbank or Mike Onagai. They have to make Facebook apps, I get to build whatever I feel like. Also I think stealing fuels innovation. Facebook came from facesmash, a clone of hotornot. So did YouTube. Appbank started as a clone of quiz monster, but they evolved into something better, something original, and innovative. I'm happy for them. > "I was born wealthy; I have an obscene trust fund. I assure you that if required, I will obtain the best legal representationmfor corporate litigation in the Silicon Valley. After your last proposal, I will resist this legal action well beyondmwhat makes any financial sense, simply out of principal."

brianhama 14y ago

For what it's worth, here is my response to all the comments: http://brianhama.com/my-answer-to-all-the-questions-since-whoshere http://brianhama.com/my-answer-to-all-the-questions-since-wh...

dave1619 14y ago

Who's Here (WhosHere) and Who's Near Me are two totally different names. What's the same? Just "Who". Here and Near Me are very different. Anybody else agree with me?

koeselitz 14y ago

It seems like the best outcome here would be if both companies chose better, more accurate names. I was thinking maybe "WhosAnOverLitigiousFounder" and "WhosAHyperAggressiveConcernTroll."

blueben 14y ago

Ah, someone here doesn't like my opinion and thusly is downvoting every comment I've ever made. It's been quite a while since I was around HN, but I'm very disappointed. Is suggesting that perhaps letting a Judge decide these legal matters such a bad idea?

heretohelp 14y ago

Can we settle this Notch-style with a Quake match?

bcurdy 14y ago

I've found another company for Whoshere to sue!! They should go full speed after those guys: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/whos-hiding-preschool/id396335703?mt=8 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/whos-hiding-preschool/id39633...

its_so_on 14y ago

After reading the original, it's obvious that this response is complete bullshit. "and offered a revenue share deal for $100,000, plus fees, for ongoing development (that is where the license agreement that Mr. Hamacheck references comes into play, but he left this upside out of his blog post). We truly expected a counter offer. But, when he rejected the offer outright, we asked him what he thought was fair. We never received a response." Meaning: We offered him a "deal" worth $100,000. It was only after he refused that we put the hit out.