Live data from Hacker News

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

whoshere.zendesk.com

21–30 of 145 posts

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

#21
post #10

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.

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.

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

#22

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 "Hambur…

In general, if you have a trademark and do not defend it, your lack of defending can be used against you later.

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

#23
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.

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

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trademarks and patents are two different things.

Obviously. Let's say Trademarks trolls, I simply used their own term.

If we are going down THAT road, it's "IP Trolls" then.

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

#25

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 "Hambur…

In general, if you have a trademark and do not defend it, your lack of defending can be used against you later.

True! It can't be arbitrary.

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

#26

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/v4qbuvns0xkik...

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.

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

#28
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?

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

#29

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 "Hambur…

In general, if you have a trademark and do not defend it, your lack of defending can be used against you later.

[deleted]

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

#30

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 "Hambur…

In general, if you have a trademark and do not defend it, your lack of defending can be used against you later.

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.)

Post reply on HN