11–20 of 56 posts
i'm curious about the timing here. did you see vistor.js hit HN and rewrite it in a few hours? or were you working on this in isolation and when you saw it on HN decided it was the perfect time to ship?
Fyi: I am not storing the information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. And the recently-posted paid visitor.js site does have a few advantages, most being that this is using pure javascript, while they have the server side doing most of the heavy lifting.
In that case, this implementation really should have a different name. It's confusing to have two competing implementations share the same name, and it may be a trademark violation.
"visitor.js" isn't distinct in the field, particularly as it's descriptive and of a common form, I'd warrant it's not novel either.
That doesn't mean that you wouldn't be sued for using it just that any sane TM office shouldn't allow it to be registered and that a sane IP judge should dismiss a case brought against it's use as passing off. The law isn't sane of course ....
I think it's reasonable to use the same name if the scope is largely co-terminous.
i'm curious about the timing here. did you see vistor.js hit HN and rewrite it in a few hours? or were you working on this in isolation and when you saw it on HN decided it was the perfect time to ship?
404?