Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Open Letter to Warby Parker

classicspecs.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#41

Post by dangrossman »

dfc wrote: post #23
nirvana wrote: post #8

What's fascinating to me is comparing the impression you get from the lawyers letter (wow, they really ripped off the warby parker website!) with the response (we're using off the shelf privacy policy, and industry terms.) It shows just how deceptive selective phrasing can be. "Substantially identical" implies that the text was a copy of copyrighted material, but the selectivity is the bias- they never show that the…

From what I can see it says "substantially similar" not "substantially identical."[1] I am not a lawyer but it is my understanding that the relevant issue is "substantially similar."[2] What do you mean "they never show that the text was copyrighted"? Do you know what is required to copyright content? There is no office where you file a copyright application. Using a (c) and/or other types of copyright notices is opt…

> Do you know what is required to copyright content

That content can't be a mere statement of fact, for one.

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#42

Post by dfc »

dangrossman wrote: post #41
dfc wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can see it says "substantially similar" not "substantially identical."[1] I am not a lawyer but it is my understanding that the relevant issue is "substantially similar."[2] What do you mean "they never show that the text was copyrighted"? Do you know what is required to copyright content? There is no office where you file a copyright application. Using a (c) and/or other types of copyright notices is opt…

> Do you know what is required to copyright content That content can't be a mere statement of fact, for one.

I'm not really sure what this means? The lawyer's letter was a list of allegations. Maybe you are not used to the writing style of legal documents? This is how they are written...

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#43

Post by Karunamon »

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #27
rdl wrote: post #16

This whole thing makes me so glad I got LASIK a few years ago.

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/20... Ray Tsai (蔡瑞芳), one of Taiwan's pioneers in laser eye surgery, said yesterday that he will no longer perform the procedure because it violates his medical ethics. ... He has observed situations in which visual acuity worsens suddenly and rapidly long after the LASIK procedure itself.

>He has observed situations

There are situations in which medical procedures fail, sometimes immediately, sometimes many years after the fact. That does not indicate a problem with the procedure.

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#44

Post by dangrossman »

dfc wrote: post #42
dangrossman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you know what is required to copyright content That content can't be a mere statement of fact, for one.

I'm not really sure what this means? The lawyer's letter was a list of allegations. Maybe you are not used to the writing style of legal documents? This is how they are written...

Let me clarify then:

1) The original comment you replied to noted that the lawyers making the allegations did not show that the text was copyrightable. This is a reference to the article pointing out that some of the text in question consists of mere statements of fact.

2) You replied with a sarcastic rhetorical question about whether the commentor knew what was required to be protected by copyright.

3) I replied to you that the content can't be mere statement of fact. This is the relevant characteristic in determining whether that content could be protected by copyright, not whether it was registered with the copyright office.

4) You got confused and started talking about the style of legal letters.

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#45

Post by mokus »

dfc wrote: post #40
tylerritchie wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is no office where you file a copyright application. Using a (c) and/or other types of copyright notices is optional in a post-Berne American court. Copyright is given de facto, but there is in fact an office where you file for a registered copyright. In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copy­right. However, registration is…

" registration is not a condition of copyright protection "

"Copyright is given de facto, but" ...

If you're going to imply someone isn't reading what they wrote, the least you can do is read what they wrote.

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#46

Post by dfc »

mokus wrote: post #45
dfc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" registration is not a condition of copyright protection "

"Copyright is given de facto, but" ... If you're going to imply someone isn't reading what they wrote, the least you can do is read what they wrote.

True. I apologize for coming off like a jerk. I should have provided more context, i was trying to highlight that contrary to what the OP wrote that is was irrelevant "they never show that the text was copyrighted."

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#47

Post by tzaman »

mgkimsal wrote: post #18
tzaman wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Open letters let customers know what is going on behind the scenes. No way am I going to buy from a company with this kind of attitude/culture.

Which one, WP or CS?

Not going to buy from WP. The content of the attached document clearly shows how ignorant they are. I hate ignorance. It's the lazy way out.

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#48

Post by tomkarlo »

abyssknight wrote: post #3

Why do startups do this? I've seen this a few times over the past few years, and every time I find it loathsome. Dirty laundry isn't something you just go around airing because someone sent you a C&D letter. It could have been a mistake, it could have been a rogue legal team member, it could have been anything. Does it matter to the general public? No. Should it? No. This is between two businesses, and should have st…

If it's a mistake, or a rogue team member, the onus is on WP to correct the letter. Aside from verifying that the letter did indeed come from someone authorized to speak on behalf of WP, it's fair for the recipient to assume that the letter is "as authorized" by the sender.

If someone like WP or another company is going to send a letter like this, they should operate on the assumption that it will be made public (especially if it might later end up in litigation.) That would seem to just be good practice with any document you're issuing outside of your company, especially when you're basically initiating a disagreement.

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#49

Post by larrys »

dkrich wrote: post #26

Until Classic Specs gets a prominently-featured set of advertisements with a faux-intellectual, salt-and-pepper haired douchebag, Warby Parker can't cry foul. I know this is going to get down-voted, but seriously, it is 2012. Who buys a monocle? I want to buy one and wear it around as a joke.

"faux-intellectual, salt-and-pepper haired douchebag"

The name of course is also a little to invented.

Nothing wrong with that but it reminds me of the way people used to name investment firms trying to sound all distinguished and "we've been around for 100 years". There are actually examples of companies that have scammed people using a particular type of made up name.

Here is how they made up the name:

http://www.theparadigmcase.com/2011/07/the-case-on-style-war...

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#50

Post by [deleted] »

dfc wrote: post #23
nirvana wrote: post #8

What's fascinating to me is comparing the impression you get from the lawyers letter (wow, they really ripped off the warby parker website!) with the response (we're using off the shelf privacy policy, and industry terms.) It shows just how deceptive selective phrasing can be. "Substantially identical" implies that the text was a copy of copyrighted material, but the selectivity is the bias- they never show that the…

From what I can see it says "substantially similar" not "substantially identical."[1] I am not a lawyer but it is my understanding that the relevant issue is "substantially similar."[2] What do you mean "they never show that the text was copyrighted"? Do you know what is required to copyright content? There is no office where you file a copyright application. Using a (c) and/or other types of copyright notices is opt…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN