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

Otonomo, with nearly $55M in funding, is cloning our product

smartcar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 637 posts

Re: Otonomo, with nearly $55M in funding, is cloning our product

#481

Post by pron »

hathawsh wrote: post #469
ricardobeat wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was going to say the same, but it looks like the documentation mentioned is for the client indeed. If the client is MIT licensed, are you infringing on anything by writing a compatible API?

That question is the essence of the ongoing Oracle v. Google case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google... .

The APIs discussed in that case are only "classical" APIs, i.e. code APIs, not "web APIs", which are really protocols. Despite the fact that recently people have started calling protocols APIs, the two have huge differences from a copyright perspective[1], so that extrapolating from the former to the latter is tenuous, regardless of the ultimate outcome of that case.

Moreover, the court ruling makes it seem that if the intent is interoperability, fair use may apply (only the court rules Google's intent was not interoperability, as their implementation was intentionally incompatible).

Although in this particular case, it appears they can claim copyright violation on the documentation.

[1]: Most notably, in order to be copyrightable, a work has to be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102), i.e. you need to have a specific text (or image) that you can say, this is the work (although then even derivatives are protected). This is true for APIs, but not for protocols (or REST "APIs"). Whether this distinction makes sense to programmers or not is irrelevant. The same distinction holds for programs vs. algorithms: programs are "fixed in a tangible medium", and are subject to copyright, but algorithms are not, and not subject to copyright (but can be protected by patents).

Re: Otonomo, with nearly $55M in funding, is cloning our product

#482

Post by mkhalil »

stcredzero wrote: post #431
mkhalil wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Knee jerk rapid reactions aren't an example of "spoken about maturely." I literally said his response was dumb so I'm not really sure what your point is by claiming I am considering his reaction mature. I understand if you misread my comment, but I'm baffled otherwise. Thankfully, this is the internet and we can talk it through if we want. (edit: typo)

I'm not really sure what your point is by claiming I am considering his reaction mature. Actually, your comment could indeed be read that way. Therefore I'm obliged to push back against such a position, even if you didn't mean it precisely that way. I'm generally having a conversation for the sake of the 3rd party. The lurkers are the majority of this site's users. Thankfully, this is the internet and we can talk it…

> My un-provable suspicion is that civil discourse itself is being targeted by nefarious forces.

I don't know if it's a collective of forces, but I have to agree with the opinion that civil discourse is being targeted.

There's been enormous political polarization in the past decade or less, and there is a growing list of topics or social movements that if I even LIST as debatable or in need of further discussion, would put myself in great danger of being targeted, defamed or worse.

And the worst part is, once you have been attacked and mobbed by this new public shaming tactic, very very rarely is being defensive or opening a dialogue something people want, they just want vengeance, and submissiveness.

Re: Otonomo, with nearly $55M in funding, is cloning our product

#483

Post by [deleted] »

woah wrote: post #458
gepoch wrote: post #437

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere so I thought I'd post it to see what you all think... IANAL, IMHO, etc. I searched for one of the unique tokens in the docs: https://www.google.com/search?q=0facda3319 That pulls up their SDK github repo: https://github.com/smartcar/node-sdk/blob/master/doc/readme.... Which is published with a standard MIT license: https://github.com/smartcar/node-sdk/blob/master/LICENSE.md Whic…

What a plot twist. How embarrassing for Smartcar to have written this whole blog post and tried to sue them.

[deleted]

Re: Otonomo, with nearly $55M in funding, is cloning our product

#484

Post by dragonwriter »

nocman wrote: post #480
znpy wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The generic term is basically iThing. Are you from the US? Because here in .eu "iThing" is definitely not the generic term for pretty much anything.

Not the parent, but I am from the US. I don't know anyone who uses i{whatever} as a generic term. When they say iPhone, they mean a smartphone manufactured by Apple. When they say iPad, they mean a tablet computer manufactured by Apple, and so on.

I am also from the US, and I frequently hear (in decreasing order of dominance):

“Apple Pay” being used as a generic for “phone-based contactless payment system”, “iPad” as generic for “tablet”, and “iPhone” as generic for “smartphone”.

Re: Otonomo, with nearly $55M in funding, is cloning our product

#485

Post by stonogo »

Are they complaining about someone else implementing the same API? Since the entire point of an API is interoperability, what could the problem possibly be? Are Smartcar claiming their product is a series of URLs? And that sounds sane enough to defend?

Or are they complaining this other company is copying their documentation, which is evidently released with a permissive license? Is Smartcar's product the API documentation?

Either way, this is far removed from my understanding of how computers work. Copyright exemptions for compatibility work have a long precedent. If Otonomo's business model is to build Smartcar-compatible products, and Smartcar does not like this, it seems like they should have more carefully considered what their product is, and how to protect it.

Re: Otonomo, with nearly $55M in funding, is cloning our product

#487

Post by ch4ch4 »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #400
jacquesm wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bessemer's last round was a series 'B', by then the bits and pieces would have all been in place, whether it was public or not isn't even all that important. It does raise an interesting question though: how will the OP prove that their work is the original, that might hinge on a lot of unknowns, more difficult still if the work was originally lifted by an employee of the company and then passed on to Otonomo with th…

Yes, seems likely, but user documentation often comes really late in the process.

However, the Smartcar CEO replied in another thread that they use Readme.io for their docs, which can autogenerate using Swagger, which automatically parses hints in code.

So it is definitely possible that the codebase got stolen and the perps missed changing a few hints, resulting in the Otonomo samples generating identical sample code, as shown.

Re: Otonomo, with nearly $55M in funding, is cloning our product

#488

Post by ignoramous »

trpc wrote: post #486

does this page ever load? I've tried like 5 or 6 times over the course of the last 9 hours and never been able to see what the hell that is all about even with a VPN

Yes, the page does load.

Try this mirror: https://outline.com/FfSCUm

Re: Otonomo, with nearly $55M in funding, is cloning our product

#489

Post by doublekill »

woah wrote: post #458
gepoch wrote: post #437

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere so I thought I'd post it to see what you all think... IANAL, IMHO, etc. I searched for one of the unique tokens in the docs: https://www.google.com/search?q=0facda3319 That pulls up their SDK github repo: https://github.com/smartcar/node-sdk/blob/master/doc/readme.... Which is published with a standard MIT license: https://github.com/smartcar/node-sdk/blob/master/LICENSE.md Whic…

What a plot twist. How embarrassing for Smartcar to have written this whole blog post and tried to sue them.

Especially when using words like "illegally", probably without consulting a lawyer. May now be open to countersuit for accusing them of illegal behavior.

Re: Otonomo, with nearly $55M in funding, is cloning our product

#490

Post by neoquisitive »

mrfusion wrote: post #302
neoquisitive wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclosure: I used to work for Smartcar. This is patently false. Smartcar does not require additional hardware. Quoting from their product page: > Our API works with the embedded telematics module built into most new vehicles. No need for aftermarket hardware like OBD2 dongles.

So it’s like builtin Bluetooth?

through builtin cellular data
Post reply on HN