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

131–140 of 145 posts

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

#131

Post by blueben »

3pt14159 wrote: post #90

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…

How about we let a court decide whether or not this is Trademark infringement instead.

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

#133

Post by bryze »

blueben wrote: post #128
bryze wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you actually believe that he's being honest? Sounds like he's puffing up to try and discourage them. When you're up against people who bring you into the legal ring, it might be a bad idea to show them that you're penniless.

So we should believe what he says in public instead of what he says in private? Lets be honest here. He's lying. It doesn't matter which statement is a lie. That is a massive statement of his character.

I admit, that's a good point.

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

#135

Post by kvnn »

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 ?

He was being sarcastic. It was funny.

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

#136

Post by jrockway »

AznHisoka wrote: post #73
newobj wrote: post #61

A slap fight over an awful trademark.

Seriously, I read both articles, and you put a gun in my head, and I'd tell you I still can't tell you the names of these 2 apps. Who's where? Who's here? Where's Waldo? Who cares? Such generic names, no branding.

+1

I now want to release an app called "who cares that I'm near them" that will just display an empty list.

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

#137

Post by bigiain »

zerotype wrote: post #83
bigiain wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I guess we disagree then, but I find it a hard enough stretch to think they've got any sort of justifiable trademark claim over "Who's Near Me" just because they've got "Who Here" registered. For them to push past that, and apply their VC backed legal muscle to try and get him to hand over the wnmlive.com domain based on their "Who's Here" trademark seems, from where I sit, to be a pure evil misuse of the legal system.

While their success in getting through to summary judgement seems to indicate they've won this battle, I hope in the longer term that the repercussions for Bryant Harris & Stephen Smith & Synerge Tech Solutions & Lightbank make the outcome of "the war" somewhat less attractive for them. I know those four names have been added to my list of people who've demonstrated a failure to conduct business honorably, and any decisions or advice I make about whether to use or recommend services they're involved with will be informed by their previous behaviour.

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

#139

Post by its_so_on »

After reading the original, it's obvious that this response is complete bullshit.

"and offered a revenue share deal for $100,000, plus fees, for ongoing development (that is where the license agreement that Mr. Hamacheck references comes into play, but he left this upside out of his blog post). We truly expected a counter offer. But, when he rejected the offer outright, we asked him what he thought was fair. We never received a response."

Meaning:

We offered him a "deal" worth $100,000. It was only after he refused that we put the hit out.

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

#140

Post by cabalamat »

3pt14159 wrote: post #90

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…

> Brian is a douche [...] But the fucking fact of the matter is that he is right.

Speaking personally, I'd be reluctant to have a business relationship with either party in this dispute.

Post reply on HN