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

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

whoshere.zendesk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 145 posts

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

#31

Post by yeahitsme72 »

jrockway wrote: post #11

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…

I think saying you'll change your name then not doing it is pretty shitty too.

So is posting a 'help I'm being attacked' article but failing to mention you built your app as a demo for WhosHere hoping they would buy it from you as their windows client seems more than a bit misleading.

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

#32

Post by domwood »

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.

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

#33

Post by taligent »

ericb wrote: 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.

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.

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

#34

Post by jaems33 »

clarkevans wrote: post #21
ericb wrote: 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.

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.

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

#35

Post by jrockway »

yeahitsme72 wrote: post #31
jrockway wrote: post #11

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…

I think saying you'll change your name then not doing it is pretty shitty too. So is posting a 'help I'm being attacked' article but failing to mention you built your app as a demo for WhosHere hoping they would buy it from you as their windows client seems more than a bit misleading.

It sounds misleading, I agree, but I don't think it's actually misleading. Remember, implementation is more important than ideas.

Nobody involved in this dispute is the first person to think of displaying a list of people that are nearby, and "who's here" and "who's near me" are both equally generic descriptions of this functionality.

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

#36

Post by taligent »

BoudahTalenka wrote: post #18
Gigablah wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trademarks and patents are two different things.

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

How are they are a trademark troll for defending their trademark against a similar sounding name ?

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

#37

Post by jsprinkles »

jrockway wrote: post #30
jsprinkles wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Hey, Steve. It's John at Cisco. We know you don't like the name iPhone OS since you have iPads now, and we really appreciate the prior settlement with you regarding the mark iPhone.

"I know you want to use the name iOS, and to ensure that we can defend our mark in court in the future, we need you to license the mark IOS from us for $1." Who wouldn't take that? Do you really think a successful business can be run while valuing your marks at a dollar? It's business.

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

#38

Post by dbkbali »

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.

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

#40

Post by harryh »

zainny wrote: post #26
anton000 wrote: post #15

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,…

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?

Post reply on HN