6 ms·

It looks like a tidy application, and I'm assuming it's functional - good job. You're probably going to need to deal with the WhatsApp legal team very soon. I

It looks like a tidy application, and I'm assuming it's functional - good job. You're probably going to need to deal with the WhatsApp legal team very soon. I recall several HN threads discussing various shutdowns of 3rd party WhatsApp-based services. One example which came from a quick search was: https://github.com/venomous0x/WhatsAPI https://github.com/venomous0x/WhatsAPI Good luck!

DanielStraight 11y ago
> You're probably going to need to deal with the WhatsApp legal team very soon. And for good reason. Remember that trademarks are a consumer protection policy to avoid confusion. I was certainly confused at first. If it wasn't for the "Show HN" on the title, I might still be confused. The product name is "WhatsApp for Desktop", the page includes links back to whatsapp.com for the user to find more information, pictures copied directly from whatsapp.com (itself a fairly obvious copyright violation), and the file that's downloaded is called WhatsAppSetup.exe. It is quite reasonable to think that someone could think this was official, easily missing the fine print that clarifies. I strongly suggest anyone releasing software on the internet familiarize themselves with the relevant laws on trademark and copyright so they can avoid mistakes like this. There is no way this could stand up to legal scrutiny. Naming your product AnotherCompany PrepositionalPhrase is not something which presents an interesting legal debate, it's an amateur mistake. I am not a lawyer. This comment is not legal advice.
- higherpurpose 11y ago
  It might've been better to do what "Reddit News" did when it turned into "Relay for Reddit" [1]. So it shouldn't be "Whatsapp" for something. But "Something" for Whatsapp. I'm not entirely sure if that avoids all the legal issues or whether it was just something Reddit itself was willing to compromise on in the case of "Relay for Reddit", but at least you should start with that kind of default rather than shamelessly using other company's product name as if it was your own. I think others who have used Google's name or other product names in their own Chrome extensions have taken a similar path. Like how "Gmail Checker Plus" (or something) became "Checker Plus For Gmail" [2]. [1] - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=free.reddit.news https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=free.reddit.ne... [2] - http://jasonsavard.com/checkerPlusForGmail http://jasonsavard.com/checkerPlusForGmail
  - Bulk70 11y ago
    Speaking as someone who created an extension for a Google service (Youtube) - the name change was forced on me. My extension was taken down from the Chrome store with guidance to change the name to "XXX for YouTube" with the requirement to follow their branding guidelines etc.
  - Igglyboo 11y ago
    I totally agree "Whatsapp for X" implies that Whatsapp proper created an application for X while "X for Whatsapp" doesn't have the same implication.
  - amyjess 11y ago
    "[Name] for [Service]" is a popular format in the third-party client world, and it's one that's tolerated by all the big players. Much older examples include "Plume for Twitter" and "FriendCaster for Facebook". In the case of the former, it was by agreement with Twitter: Plume used to be called Touiteur until Twitter made them change it. You're seeing it more lately because Google recently changed the Play Store's app naming policy to forbid using the name of an existing service as part of your app's main brand, only allowing a special clause (e.g. "for [Service]") following the main brand. Also, around the same time, reddit changed their API policy to add a similar requirement. In the long run, it's going to be beneficial for app developers because now they can take their name and use it for apps across multiple services. For example, the developers of Plume could create a "Plume for Facebook" app and so on, so they end up with a whole family of Plume apps, each one for a different social network.
  - merb 11y ago
    So WhatsApp for Desktop will become, "Message Reader for WhatsApp for Desktop"?
  - Aldo_MX 11y ago
    So is "Desktop Client for WhatsApp" a better name?
    - JohnyLy 11y ago
      I honestly don't think it's legal to use the name WhatsApp unless you propose a service totally different (If you sell chocolates and are called WhatsApp, there would not be any problem for example). Writing "Unofficial" or "desktop" won't change the fact that you propose the same service and using their name to promote it.
- Vespasian 11y ago
  Pretty much this. There are cases where trademarks are defended overly aggressive (e.g. recently IMAX vs arstechnica) but in this case a regular person could reasonably assume that this is official (domain,name,layout,colors). My advice to the author would be to take the website down, change the domain,repostory binary name. There is no realistic scenario where this (as it is) survives thismonth.
  - impish19 11y ago
    I agree. 'Desktop client for WhatsApp' sounds about ok. I guess with a name like 'Unofficial WhatsApp for Desktop' would remove all ambiguities and also convey very clearly that you're not trying to trick people.
graeham 11y ago
Hope not - their reaction shouldn't be lawsuits, it should be "hire this guy/ gal"! I don't see why so many popular mobile apps seem to refuse to have web-versions for use on other platforms. Even if it's less functional.
- egeozcan 11y ago
  > Even if it's less functional. Having something with missing functionality and/or bugs isn't always better than having nothing if you look at it from a marketing perspective. I agree that hiring someone talented who seems to like your brand to work on their extensions of your product would usually be a good investment, just not always.
- misnome 11y ago
  Whatever their reason is, it is certainly not a technical reason e.g. inability to write the client. It's a choice they have made.
- vishnuks 11y ago
  Whatsapp already have a web version. He merely converted that into a desktop client with the help of Node Web Kit.
- joeyspn 11y ago
  > their reaction shouldn't be lawsuits, it should be "hire this guy/gal" For building a webview wrapper with nw.js? It cost me 5 mins to build mine... It's an "app" that will never leave my desktop and I still give Jan Koum credit in the About section... xD http://i.imgur.com/BXu4F7M.png http://i.imgur.com/BXu4F7M.png Let's hope the WhatsApp team won't be too harsh with the guy. Clearly it's been an ingenuous move by a young dev. Hopefully they'll come to terms just taking it down or renaming completely the project.
joeyspn 11y ago
^ Hit the nail on the head... I've been using a similar wrapper for whatsapp web that I built myself with nw.js, but I didn't upload it to github because of obvious reasons (see WhatsAPI case...)
aluxian 11y ago
My app doesn't use their API directly, nor does it try to interfere with it.
- aikah 11y ago
  Doesn't matter, you're using "whatsapp" trademark(and your logo is similar) and their api without any disclaimer, directly or not. And they have enough money to at least shut you down. Some projects have been shut down for way less. Nice project though, good luck.

DanielStraight 11y ago

> You're probably going to need to deal with the WhatsApp legal team very soon. And for good reason. Remember that trademarks are a consumer protection policy to avoid confusion. I was certainly confused at first. If it wasn't for the "Show HN" on the title, I might still be confused. The product name is "WhatsApp for Desktop", the page includes links back to whatsapp.com for the user to find more information, pictures copied directly from whatsapp.com (itself a fairly obvious copyright violation), and the file that's downloaded is called WhatsAppSetup.exe. It is quite reasonable to think that someone could think this was official, easily missing the fine print that clarifies. I strongly suggest anyone releasing software on the internet familiarize themselves with the relevant laws on trademark and copyright so they can avoid mistakes like this. There is no way this could stand up to legal scrutiny. Naming your product AnotherCompany PrepositionalPhrase is not something which presents an interesting legal debate, it's an amateur mistake. I am not a lawyer. This comment is not legal advice.

higherpurpose 11y ago
It might've been better to do what "Reddit News" did when it turned into "Relay for Reddit" [1]. So it shouldn't be "Whatsapp" for something. But "Something" for Whatsapp. I'm not entirely sure if that avoids all the legal issues or whether it was just something Reddit itself was willing to compromise on in the case of "Relay for Reddit", but at least you should start with that kind of default rather than shamelessly using other company's product name as if it was your own. I think others who have used Google's name or other product names in their own Chrome extensions have taken a similar path. Like how "Gmail Checker Plus" (or something) became "Checker Plus For Gmail" [2]. [1] - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=free.reddit.news https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=free.reddit.ne... [2] - http://jasonsavard.com/checkerPlusForGmail http://jasonsavard.com/checkerPlusForGmail
- Bulk70 11y ago
  Speaking as someone who created an extension for a Google service (Youtube) - the name change was forced on me. My extension was taken down from the Chrome store with guidance to change the name to "XXX for YouTube" with the requirement to follow their branding guidelines etc.
- Igglyboo 11y ago
  I totally agree "Whatsapp for X" implies that Whatsapp proper created an application for X while "X for Whatsapp" doesn't have the same implication.
- amyjess 11y ago
  "[Name] for [Service]" is a popular format in the third-party client world, and it's one that's tolerated by all the big players. Much older examples include "Plume for Twitter" and "FriendCaster for Facebook". In the case of the former, it was by agreement with Twitter: Plume used to be called Touiteur until Twitter made them change it. You're seeing it more lately because Google recently changed the Play Store's app naming policy to forbid using the name of an existing service as part of your app's main brand, only allowing a special clause (e.g. "for [Service]") following the main brand. Also, around the same time, reddit changed their API policy to add a similar requirement. In the long run, it's going to be beneficial for app developers because now they can take their name and use it for apps across multiple services. For example, the developers of Plume could create a "Plume for Facebook" app and so on, so they end up with a whole family of Plume apps, each one for a different social network.
- merb 11y ago
  So WhatsApp for Desktop will become, "Message Reader for WhatsApp for Desktop"?
- Aldo_MX 11y ago
  So is "Desktop Client for WhatsApp" a better name?
  - JohnyLy 11y ago
    I honestly don't think it's legal to use the name WhatsApp unless you propose a service totally different (If you sell chocolates and are called WhatsApp, there would not be any problem for example). Writing "Unofficial" or "desktop" won't change the fact that you propose the same service and using their name to promote it.
Vespasian 11y ago
Pretty much this. There are cases where trademarks are defended overly aggressive (e.g. recently IMAX vs arstechnica) but in this case a regular person could reasonably assume that this is official (domain,name,layout,colors). My advice to the author would be to take the website down, change the domain,repostory binary name. There is no realistic scenario where this (as it is) survives thismonth.
- impish19 11y ago
  I agree. 'Desktop client for WhatsApp' sounds about ok. I guess with a name like 'Unofficial WhatsApp for Desktop' would remove all ambiguities and also convey very clearly that you're not trying to trick people.

graeham 11y ago

Hope not - their reaction shouldn't be lawsuits, it should be "hire this guy/ gal"! I don't see why so many popular mobile apps seem to refuse to have web-versions for use on other platforms. Even if it's less functional.

egeozcan 11y ago
> Even if it's less functional. Having something with missing functionality and/or bugs isn't always better than having nothing if you look at it from a marketing perspective. I agree that hiring someone talented who seems to like your brand to work on their extensions of your product would usually be a good investment, just not always.
misnome 11y ago
Whatever their reason is, it is certainly not a technical reason e.g. inability to write the client. It's a choice they have made.
vishnuks 11y ago
Whatsapp already have a web version. He merely converted that into a desktop client with the help of Node Web Kit.
joeyspn 11y ago
> their reaction shouldn't be lawsuits, it should be "hire this guy/gal" For building a webview wrapper with nw.js? It cost me 5 mins to build mine... It's an "app" that will never leave my desktop and I still give Jan Koum credit in the About section... xD http://i.imgur.com/BXu4F7M.png http://i.imgur.com/BXu4F7M.png Let's hope the WhatsApp team won't be too harsh with the guy. Clearly it's been an ingenuous move by a young dev. Hopefully they'll come to terms just taking it down or renaming completely the project.

joeyspn 11y ago

^ Hit the nail on the head... I've been using a similar wrapper for whatsapp web that I built myself with nw.js, but I didn't upload it to github because of obvious reasons (see WhatsAPI case...)

aluxian 11y ago

My app doesn't use their API directly, nor does it try to interfere with it.

aikah 11y ago
Doesn't matter, you're using "whatsapp" trademark(and your logo is similar) and their api without any disclaimer, directly or not. And they have enough money to at least shut you down. Some projects have been shut down for way less. Nice project though, good luck.