101–110 of 323 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright violation is not theft. Your effort to create something that can be effortlessly copied conveys to you no property. Society deems it beneficial to grant a time limited monopoly on copying it to spur innovation.
You wouldn’t steal a car!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This person is so dangerous that if I offer them to stay in my shaded yard in the middle of the excruciating sun, they will demand that I let them take my house as well.
[flagged]
Yeah, that's nonsense - licenses exist precisely to solve this problem. Read up on it - do everyone a favor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most likely, Papermark would compel Corgi to disclose the source code during discovery.
I didn't realise that one could forcibly require a competitor to disclose trade secrets. Now, INAL of course, but I would think this sort of mechanism would be quite gameable from both sides ( i) a wealthy competitor legally forcing a promising upstart to reveal source ii) a copycat working out some kind of arrangement where the code itself is licensed to them via shell company based overseas.)
If someone is trying to dig into their competitor's trade secrets via discovery, the court offers multiple ways to safeguard against that. The defendant can identify information as a trade secret and ask that it be protected in some way - for example, the documents may be restricted to "Attorneys' Eyes Only", so while the plaintiff's attorneys can review the material, the plaintiffs themselves are barred from reviewing it. Or the judge themselves may get involved in an in-camera session.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't realise that one could forcibly require a competitor to disclose trade secrets. Now, INAL of course, but I would think this sort of mechanism would be quite gameable from both sides ( i) a wealthy competitor legally forcing a promising upstart to reveal source ii) a copycat working out some kind of arrangement where the code itself is licensed to them via shell company based overseas.)
As with most legal hacks, the courts figured this one out long ago :). If someone is trying to dig into their competitor's trade secrets via discovery, the court offers multiple ways to safeguard against that. The defendant can identify information as a trade secret and ask that it be protected in some way - for example, the documents may be restricted to "Attorneys' Eyes Only", so while the plaintiff's attorneys can…
Their response: > The team that made dataroom has stated that they did not use any of papermark’s code and that dataroom was made from scratch with inspiration from existing document sharing softwares, and that this post’s allegations of us stealing code are false. [...] The screenshots clearly show they copied whole pages verbatim, both design and texts. The founder, Nico Laqua, basically responding with "we didn't…
I wouldn't be that surprised if Nico genuinely thinks "we didn't copy the code" is a reasonable defense. It would be a clear cut rule, and extreme "shape rotator" types often have trouble with the fuzziness of things like law. In reality, copyright infringement is often more like the porn test, you know it when you see it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't realise that one could forcibly require a competitor to disclose trade secrets. Now, INAL of course, but I would think this sort of mechanism would be quite gameable from both sides ( i) a wealthy competitor legally forcing a promising upstart to reveal source ii) a copycat working out some kind of arrangement where the code itself is licensed to them via shell company based overseas.)
As with most legal hacks, the courts figured this one out long ago :). If someone is trying to dig into their competitor's trade secrets via discovery, the court offers multiple ways to safeguard against that. The defendant can identify information as a trade secret and ask that it be protected in some way - for example, the documents may be restricted to "Attorneys' Eyes Only", so while the plaintiff's attorneys can…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if Nico will be feeling so cocky when Papermark gets their general counsel involved. The public Twitter shaming was clearly an attempt to resolve this without litigation, but hey, if that's how Nico truly feels, guess he gets to see what's behind door #2 (a massive bill for a legal retainer).
I am curious how this will play out legally. Surely UI enough isn't enough to prove that source code was plagiarised? In the event Papermark chooses to sue how will the defendant defend themselves short of presenting their own (possibly) closed source?
I am curious if/how YC will handle this to get ahead of earning a reputation of being a den of scammers - a few months after the Delve scandal
What's with this response in the Twitter thread??: "This ain't what a C&D looks like. Implies you don't actually have a leg to stand on. Upload a copy of your official legal demand (from a lawyer) or I'll forever see your company as one who attempts to bully the competition in public" -- https://xcancel.com/jacobhartmannx/status/207012600834729596... Is this just trolling?!
What a bizarre complaint! It's not bullying to first try to resolve the matter informally rather than jumping straight into legal action. Besides - who is this guy, and why does he think he's owed sight of any legal paperwork?
Since the Tweet is small enough and a lot of people aren’t reading it (Twitter links don’t work well for those without an account some times) I’ll quote it here > Hey Nico, > It looks like you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark's open source and enterprise-licensed code. > We demand you take this copyright and license infringing product down immediately. > It's not moving fast and breaking th…