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

An Open Letter to Warby Parker

classicspecs.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#61

Post by dkrich »

DanBC wrote: post #52
dkrich wrote: post #26

Until Classic Specs gets a prominently-featured set of advertisements with a faux-intellectual, salt-and-pepper haired douchebag, Warby Parker can't cry foul. I know this is going to get down-voted, but seriously, it is 2012. Who buys a monocle? I want to buy one and wear it around as a joke.

> Who buys a monocle? Someone with only one eye? EDIT TO ADD: [. . .] and with facial disfigurement / prosthesis that makes wearing glasses uncomfortable or difficult.

Yes, as the other poster pointed out, go look at the guy modeling the monocle and try not to punch your fist through a window. Go ahead, try.

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#62

Post by dkrich »

larrys wrote: post #49
dkrich wrote: post #26

Until Classic Specs gets a prominently-featured set of advertisements with a faux-intellectual, salt-and-pepper haired douchebag, Warby Parker can't cry foul. I know this is going to get down-voted, but seriously, it is 2012. Who buys a monocle? I want to buy one and wear it around as a joke.

"faux-intellectual, salt-and-pepper haired douchebag" The name of course is also a little to invented. Nothing wrong with that but it reminds me of the way people used to name investment firms trying to sound all distinguished and "we've been around for 100 years". There are actually examples of companies that have scammed people using a particular type of made up name. Here is how they made up the name: http://www.t…

If you want to see this taken to ridiculous heights, check this out: http://www.bestmadeco.com/collections/frontpage/products/our...

When do you think this company was founded? Surely it was founded by an enterprising young frontiersman in the 1800's. 1850? 1900? Actually it was founded in 2009.

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#63

Post by [deleted] »

larrys wrote: post #49
dkrich wrote: post #26

Until Classic Specs gets a prominently-featured set of advertisements with a faux-intellectual, salt-and-pepper haired douchebag, Warby Parker can't cry foul. I know this is going to get down-voted, but seriously, it is 2012. Who buys a monocle? I want to buy one and wear it around as a joke.

"faux-intellectual, salt-and-pepper haired douchebag" The name of course is also a little to invented. Nothing wrong with that but it reminds me of the way people used to name investment firms trying to sound all distinguished and "we've been around for 100 years". There are actually examples of companies that have scammed people using a particular type of made up name. Here is how they made up the name: http://www.t…

[deleted]

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#65

Post by jfarmer »

mokus wrote: post #45
dfc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" registration is not a condition of copyright protection "

"Copyright is given de facto, but" ... If you're going to imply someone isn't reading what they wrote, the least you can do is read what they wrote.

Actually, it's not de facto, it's the opposite: de jure.

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#66

Post by larrys »

dkrich wrote: post #62
larrys wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"faux-intellectual, salt-and-pepper haired douchebag" The name of course is also a little to invented. Nothing wrong with that but it reminds me of the way people used to name investment firms trying to sound all distinguished and "we've been around for 100 years". There are actually examples of companies that have scammed people using a particular type of made up name. Here is how they made up the name: http://www.t…

If you want to see this taken to ridiculous heights, check this out: http://www.bestmadeco.com/collections/frontpage/products/our... When do you think this company was founded? Surely it was founded by an enterprising young frontiersman in the 1800's. 1850? 1900? Actually it was founded in 2009.

Wow. Thanks for pointing that out. They definitely get the "shovel the shit" award this week. They have axes that cost $250. I bought a fine axe at Lowes I think it was $30 maybe?

Watch this piece of work:

http://www.bestmadeprojects.com/post/5427086342/peter-buchan...

Marketing like this is a few steps removed from the "pet rock" of the 70's. Wrapping an everyday product in some kind of crafty acceptability. At least with the pet rock everyone knew it was a gimmick.

Edit: Think our links show the same video?

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#67

Post by rdl »

mtrimpe wrote: post #60
Karunamon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He has observed situations There are situations in which medical procedures fail, sometimes immediately, sometimes many years after the fact. That does not indicate a problem with the procedure.

Lasik's not all sunshine. I for example suffer from a fairly common and known complication, which is loss of contrast. That means that apart from being severely night-blind my vision becomes unpredictably blurry whenever lightning conditions change. I'm still counted as a success story but in retrospect I would trade my old impaired but stable vision for my improved but unstable vision.

Wearing contacts would have been impossible for me over the past decade, and I always had problems with glasses (specifically, waking up without good vision was a pain, and then there were various situations where I would want to see but not be wearing glasses...).

My assumption was that if there were long-term negative side effects, corneal replacement (or complete eye replacement) would become feasible within a decade or two. Corneal transplants are already done (using cadavers), and I don't think synthetic corneas are more than a few billion in research funding away with current tech.

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#68

Post by bigiain »

dangrossman wrote: post #41
dfc wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can see it says "substantially similar" not "substantially identical."[1] I am not a lawyer but it is my understanding that the relevant issue is "substantially similar."[2] What do you mean "they never show that the text was copyrighted"? Do you know what is required to copyright content? There is no office where you file a copyright application. Using a (c) and/or other types of copyright notices is opt…

> Do you know what is required to copyright content That content can't be a mere statement of fact, for one.

It also needs to be your creative work. I can't cut-n-paste a few paragraphs from Wikipedia (or some public domain text) onto my site, then claim you're infringing my copyright if your site has the same, or "substantially similar" words. (Though I _can_ get my lawyer to write you a carefully worded accusation of having something "substantially similar" without quite going over the line into fraudulently claiming copyright on the words in question).

Re: An Open Letter to Warby Parker

#69

Post by rhizome »

dfc wrote: post #46
mokus wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Copyright is given de facto, but" ... If you're going to imply someone isn't reading what they wrote, the least you can do is read what they wrote.

True. I apologize for coming off like a jerk. I should have provided more context, i was trying to highlight that contrary to what the OP wrote that is was irrelevant "they never show that the text was copyrighted."

I think it might just be bad wording. One of the requirements of notification for copyright infringement is to identify the specific instances of infringement.
Post reply on HN