Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 323 posts

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#171

Post by nerdsniper »

liendolucas wrote: post #148
manwithopinions wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re a business that deals in documents from external customers / partners, you use a data room like DocSend (by Dropbox) to share and receive documents with access management, analytics, auditing etc. Papermark is an open source alternative to DocSend. Papermark is very popular, as it is a much more cost effective alternative to DocSend — self-host or hosted. Corgi is a YC backed insurance startup that sells in…

Thanks for the insight. So regarding what you explained above, is Corgi's fate supposed to be similar to Delve's? Or are those numbers so big/important for YC that they won't be banned?

Delve screwed over other YC startups, Corgi is stealing from a non-YC startup. Therefore, there will be no official censure from YC. This is a pretty well-established fact pattern historically. Just don't mess with the YC community if you want to stay in YC.

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#172

Post by DaedalusII »

manwithopinions wrote: post #151
liendolucas wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the insight. So regarding what you explained above, is Corgi's fate supposed to be similar to Delve's? Or are those numbers so big/important for YC that they won't be banned?

Not necessarily. Delve did a lot of bad things, the primary reason for their removal was misrepresentations they made to other YC startups, i.e: YC startups paid them for security audits that turned out to be bunk which caused a big headache for their customers. Basically, the rest of YC wanted them gone for causing widespread chaos. Delve’s first drama was around copying from other startups, it was later that their…

it takes advantage of an esoteric piece of insurance regulation. They’re doing very aggressive underwriting without any of the traditional insurance regulatory protections applying to them.

elsewhere; "Laqua, whose father is a lawyer for an insurance company"

lol

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#173

Post by nerdsniper »

i000 wrote: post #167
NikxDa wrote: post #130

From what I can tell, his argument seems to be that 1. no code was manually copied by a developer, and 2. all software in the same space copies off of each other But the big giveaway here is the exact same layout/copywriting on both products. Telling an LLM "write this product and build a 1:1 clone" is still copying by all sensible definitions. The fact that he argues nothing was copied is ridiculous.

I guess that is at the core of Google vs Oracle, they copied the API kept the implementation clean-room. It was definitvely ruled that this was fair use. If fair use applies to something as strict as re-implementing an API, I would argue it applies to something much more elusive, like cloning UI/layout.

> I would argue [fair use] applies to something much more elusive, like cloning UI/layout.

You would be very wrong in this argument. It's extremely well-established that corporate verbiage and UI are subject to copyright.

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#174

Post by nerdsniper »

dcow wrote: post #116

When everyone is using LLMs to suggest IA, build basic UIs, dump out your startup in a day, etc. everything will look the same, even the source code. There will be no way to litigate this. Does it benefit society to force two companies to make their products look different? Where’s the outrage over all basic pencils looking the same? Let the market decide which pencils it prefers.

> Where’s the outrage over all basic pencils looking the same?

This would fall under patents (design patent at the very least), not copyright.

Furthermore, the English verbiage between the two are literally exactly the same. That's a clear copyright violation.

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#175

Post by nerdsniper »

Vaslo wrote: post #95

The X link has screenshots where the two products have lots of identical pages. Is that IPable? Honestly don't know since I seem to use a lot of products that look like other products (LibreOffice, etc). But the pages for obscure things looking identical is kind of sus.

Yes, written verbiage is subject to copyright. UI is also subject to copyright. The degree of similarity is astounding - this is not an edge case at all.

The lack of understanding of copyright on HN does astound me, however.

This isn't a case of convergent design (OpenOffice vs. Microsoft Word), this is identical word-for-word with a simple s/room/dataroom:

> When enabled, folders uploaded to Rooms will be mirrored into 'All Documents' with the same structure. When disabled, all documents will be placed in a single folder named after the Room in 'All Documents!

> This action cannot be undone. - All documents and folders will be permanently removed - All links and viewer access will be revoked - All analytics, audit logs, and Q&A data will be lost - Group permissions and branding will be deleted

Those are clear copyright violations.

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#176

Post by manwithopinions »

fg137 wrote: post #169
manwithopinions wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re a business that deals in documents from external customers / partners, you use a data room like DocSend (by Dropbox) to share and receive documents with access management, analytics, auditing etc. Papermark is an open source alternative to DocSend. Papermark is very popular, as it is a much more cost effective alternative to DocSend — self-host or hosted. Corgi is a YC backed insurance startup that sells in…

> Corgi were paying Dropbox thousands of dollars per month for DocSend. That's like, nothing, for a company in the insurance business valued at 3b

turns out it was less than $1,000 per month.

A startup raises ~$100m at a ~$3bn valuation and forms a team of 12 employees including their Head of Operations to build a clone of a product they pay less than $1,000/month for while they have more than 50 open roles they are hiring for.

Hmmm, yes, a very good use of available resources.

https://xcancel.com/SergioGarc20223/status/20702512486962956...

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#178

Post by handoflixue »

ncruces wrote: post #149
charcircuit wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they copied whole pages verbatim Parts of pages. Look at the screenshots. The wording is different between the pages.

You might be surprised to learn that the work of a copywriter is also copyrighted.

That's a weird thing to say in response to someone saying "the text was rewritten, so it's not actually a copy"

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#179

Post by nerdsniper »

sublimefire wrote: post #155

Being a bot of a devils advocate here. What I do not understand if it just looks similar, or implements the same features, or the code is actually copied and modified, i.e. the source is obviously from papermark. I think interfaces can be copied, thinking along the lines of implementing a protocol or a feature, so that would be legit. The UI looks very similar but if this is a totally different code then what? is it…

The English verbiage is identical. That's a clear copyright violation even if the codebase is otherwise unique.

Re: Hey Nico, you didn't vibe code your data room but stole it from Papermark

#180

Post by manwithopinions »

petesergeant wrote: post #170
manwithopinions wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, I should add, they’re growing fast because they will underwrite anyone for anything. They’re one “oops our AI underwriting has been taking on far too much risk” away from disaster. That they’re demanding 7 days a week from their employees while spending their time building a dataroom product instead of, I don’t know, improving their underwriting, is a bad sign. Normally getting insurance from a startup like Cor…

> Normally getting insurance from a startup like Corgi would be a very bad idea because what’s to say they’ll be able to pay out claims? Actually normally it’s fine because it’s rarely the startup selling insurance who’s doing the underwriting. Corgi is more worrying because they’re (apparently) underwriting too.

My understanding is a normal insurance tech startup would be acting as a broker.

A rare but sensible insurance tech startup would use external underwriters and reinsurance and provide insolvency protection.

Corgi doesn’t have any external underwriters, doesn’t have any insolvency protection, doesn’t have any reinsurance.

I think they’re bad on all 3 points, not just the underwriting?

Post reply on HN