3 ms·
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 u
by 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 agoIt 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 agoOh 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.