WhosHere's response to Brian Hamachek/Who's Near Me • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by tdfx » Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 3:48 AM UTC

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,…

  Now after reading these emails, he comes across as a complete jackass.

I agree. But WhosHere looks worse for the options they're offering him. Both are pretty terrible.

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

#82

Post by tdfx » Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 3:49 AM UTC

taligent wrote: post #41

pluies wrote: post #7

Let's do a kickstarter defence fund for WhosHere too and let the crowd decide! Bread and circuses.

Wouldn't you much rather have people spend their money on better causes e.g. actually saving lives than pathetic disputes like this ?

You must be new here.

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

#83

Post by zerotype » Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 3:50 AM UTC

bigiain wrote: post #70

jsprinkles wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 whi…

"Hey Steve. It's John at Cisco. We've got a trademark that's just a descriptive combination of two common English words. We've noticed you're using one of those common words in a different three word combination as your trademaek. We demand you give us your domain name, because, ummm, derp…" Could anyone seriously trust these guys with their social graph data after they've pulled a stunt like this? Like you say "It's…

I don't really see how you've come to that jump in logic. They seem justified in this specific case and I see no reason how them doing this means they would sell customer data or anything like that. They have not done it with the amount of users they already have. I'm sure they've been approached at this point by a company looking to get in while they can for cheap. It just seems like you are overreacting a bit.

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

#84

Post by drumdance » Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 3:53 AM UTC

taligent wrote: post #50

revelation wrote: post #6

I don't get it. If you are the small bootstrapped ultra-busy startup founder, why continue to concern yourself with this stuff. He was willing to rebrand his app, even though the trademark registration was apparently not finalized at this point. So at which point did they feel entitled to make the demands they were making?

As a startup your trademark/brand is one of the most valuable asset you have. Only inexperienced/naive startups don't defend it vigorously.

Meh. If you have traction, that may be true, but the typical startup has nothing except a willingness to work hard.

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

#85

Post by slantyyz » Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 3:54 AM UTC

geuis wrote: post #12

Look, both your team and the other fellow involved in your dispute are in the wrong. And by wrong, I mean that you're both shaking your proverbial gender-specific parts around a crowded street, shouting about who's part is bigger, and trying to get the passersby to agree with your side or his. No. One. Cares. Put your shit away and handle this like men. Either reconcile or go to war, i.e. court. Just stop acting like…

> No. One. Cares.

Sadly, 719 pts and 198 comments (as of now) and a top 3 ranking on the front page (for the other story) for several hours say otherwise.

Everybody loves a David and Goliath story, and the one side of the story that was told first belonged to the little guy.

It was quite fascinating to watch the anger and venom build up in the other thread - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055256.

I don't have an opinion on who's right in this case, but I've always found that in most disputes, the truth ultimately lands somewhere in the middle.

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

#86

Post by ScottBurson » Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 3:55 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #66

ScottBurson wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, I think you're mistaken. Any dilution of a trademark invites further dilution. IANAL either, but you've made some very strong statements here, and I think they're based on a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of how trademarks work.

I don't agree. It's not dilution if you give permission; the company printing "Kleenex" on kleenex boxes is not diluting the trademark. They have permission to use the trademark in the course of their business relationship. But just so we're not arguing about the specifics of trademark law: I think you should throw away all your legal rights to a trademark if retaining those rights means you have to be a bad person.…

That's not a good analogy. A better one would be if the Kleenex people reached a deal for a second company to market its tissues as "Cleenecs". My understanding is that that would make it easier for a third company to come along and use "KKleenXXX" -- they could argue that the word was becoming a generic term. (Trademarks can be lost if they wind up being used generically. Examples include "aspirin" and "elevator".)

But fine, let's leave the legal questions aside since neither of us is an expert.

I don't concur with your assessment of the ethicalities of the situation. Who's Here was up first and Hamachek knew about it. He could have picked a clearly different name, but did not.

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

#87

Post by drumdance » Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 4:01 AM UTC

alttab wrote: post #14

Sounds like both parties are young.

Yeah, these emails strike me as the kind of thing you write but don't send. I only learned the "don't send" part after a rather too many decisions to send.

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

#88

Post by PakG1 » Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 4:03 AM UTC

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #80

lathamcity wrote: post #69

I'm siding with WhosHere on this one (although it doesn't matter). Here's why. First, they asked Brian to change the name from "Who's Near Me" to something else, and he apparently agreed to, but his rebranding was to "WNM (Who's Near Me) Live" which is basically the same thing except that "Who's Near Me" is written smaller and acronym-ized in the brand. But it's still the same name. Second, a lot of people are talkin…

> I'm tired of the fake arrogance in C.S. culture I thought the same thing when the opening sentence of his blog post mentioned he had been coded since age 7. I have no reason to believe or not believe that point. But I don't see how that has anything to do with the problem he was about to outline in his blog. Apparently he has a huge trust fund... he could have opened with that. But I'm still in the "they're generic…

I'd say the coded since age 7 bit was to try to get people to emotionally connect with him, and thereby get the tide of public opinion on his side. Just one of the many possible tools in the chest when going to a public war.

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

#89

Post by mcantelon » Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 4:12 AM UTC

Social media startup douchebag fight club plz.

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

#90

Post by 3pt14159 » Sat, Jun 02, 2012, 4:14 AM UTC

I don't care how immature Brian is (and boy is he immature) the fact of the matter is there is no basis for the aggression that WhosHere put forth.

Brian is a douche for not sharing the whole story. He is a douche for saying he could make 400 an hour. He is a douche for pretending that he can't fight a suit when he can.

But the fucking fact of the matter is that he is right. WhosHere is not confusing with the stupid ass name Brian choose. Period. I don't like siding with the asshole cousin, but sometimes the asshole is right.