41–50 of 69 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you propose they do that ? - there's nothing magical they can do that will identify official clients that third parties couldn't replicate.
Surely that is their problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Interesting. Trademark law is probably pretty strong against repositories named "WhatsApp" or something very similar. Using the logo without permission as well. They probably fall under nominative use, which is an affirmative fair use defense. Describing an API or implementation of XYZ as a "Webclient for XYZ" should be fine.
Agreed. It's not as if there aren't a zillion other Github repositories using trademarks in their names. Consumers of open source will generally understand the distinction between official libraries and third-party-developed libraries, and if trademark law is reasonable (IANAL), it should accept even "whatsapp" repos as fair use since no "reasonable person" would be confused. But it requires someone willing to fight…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their userbase uses the Whatsapp app that comes bundled with their phones on many intl carriers. I don't think they care about the 0.0001% of their userbase that uses third party clients.
Presently, correct. But that's the risk of allowing third-party clients with an unpublished protocol spec. Right now they can break anything they want. If they don't limit third-party clients, their hands could become tied by too many people using it. EDIT: Note: I'm not a fan of proprietary protocols. I'm just describing what I see as the position of a company that wants to monetize a network like this. If the netwo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presently, correct. But that's the risk of allowing third-party clients with an unpublished protocol spec. Right now they can break anything they want. If they don't limit third-party clients, their hands could become tied by too many people using it. EDIT: Note: I'm not a fan of proprietary protocols. I'm just describing what I see as the position of a company that wants to monetize a network like this. If the netwo…
MSN made a ton of protocol changes even after there were a lot of third party clients. Trillian, for example, was very popular. Trillian had updates out for MSN changes typically within a day or two.
I wonder how much AIM and MSN Messenger's fights against third party clients messed up their user bases.
IANAL, but what the hell does a security POC (and an unofficial API derived from it) have to do copyrights? On what grounds did a repo get chosen for takedown? Is it the "whatsapp" in the name? What about a simple "x.whatsapp.net" connection string in the code? Is that infringement?
Either way, shitty move by WhatsApp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely that is their problem?
And surely taking action against parties who exploit that fact is their solution.
From what I recall, the DMCA is about copyright and trademark infringement.
I own one of the affected repositories, and submitted the original link to HN the moment I got an email notification about it from Github [1]. It's a shame we didn't get the discussion going earlier. IANAL, but what the hell does a security POC (and an unofficial API derived from it) have to do copyrights? On what grounds did a repo get chosen for takedown? Is it the "whatsapp" in the name? What about a simple "x.wha…
> This continues to cause significant harm to WhatsApp. $16bn says otherwise.
I own one of the affected repositories, and submitted the original link to HN the moment I got an email notification about it from Github [1]. It's a shame we didn't get the discussion going earlier. IANAL, but what the hell does a security POC (and an unofficial API derived from it) have to do copyrights? On what grounds did a repo get chosen for takedown? Is it the "whatsapp" in the name? What about a simple "x.wha…
You're aware that you have rights under DMCA too? File a counter-notification[1] explaining why you think the takedown isn't valid and Github will likely put the repo back online. And if WhatsApp doesn't like it, they can sue you. [1] http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have to do it to protect trademark, but not copyright. I'm not sure there's any real copyright claim to be made here. The DMCA does have provisions against reverse engineering etc. It's not clear to me from this notice exactly what's believed to be infringing other than the Trademark claim, which is pretty straightforward (and easily gotten around).
I always wondered, if a company doesn't really want to protect their trademark (too much hassle), but has to, can't they just grant people a (temporary, revokable) right to use the trademark pro forma? I remember seeing a company (something Linux-related) that had a very strict trademark policy, and they did sue people who used their logo or their name, or event something different but similar. But their web site had…