Startup Claims Google Copied Web-Annotation Product

An anonymous reader writes "Web annotation startup ReframeIt claim Google copied their web annotation product when releasing Google Sidewiki. At first glance, the products do look quite similar, and this eWeek article has some interesting evidence, including suspicious user registrations by Google employees and an attempt by Google to hire off ReframeIt's lead engineer."

Comments

Comparison shots didn't persuade me

[bonch]

I was expecting some damning evidence from the comparison shots, but it just looks like Google made their own implementation of the same features. Copying features happens, and it's not illegal.

Re:Comparison shots didn't persuade me

[hoytak]

Exactly. Here is how the process works: http://wondermark.com/555/.

Re:Comparison shots didn't persuade me

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I remember this popping up back in the 90s as well, though I thought it was actually a good, if not especially novel, idea. The main issue isn't technological, it's just marketshare; in order for this to work right just about everyone has to be using the same service.

Or a standard agreed upon, so that the service provider doesn't matter...

in all honesty.....

[phantomfive]

They may have copied it. But it wouldn't be the first time. A dirty, dark secret of Google's is that their main product, a search engine was a copy of AltaVista, which also had the dirty secret of being a copy of Aliweb.

And if you look at it, Toyota's share a lot of the major functionality of Fords. They all have a round steering wheel, for example; do you think they came up with that by accident, or do you think they were looking at other cars? They may have even had Fords available at the Toyota design offices in Japan.

Seriously, if you have a small idea that takes a small team less than six months to create, then you better have a really good marketing, a good implementation and sharp execution, otherwise some big company is going to do the same thing and win because they have better visibility and more resources.

Re:in all honesty.....

[phantomfive]

For every one that succeeded in rising there are 1000 more who were just as talented and hard working who didn't make it.

I doubt it, why do you think that? It's rare that I've met people who worked hard in a directed way without becoming quite successful. There are too many ways to succeed in this life for your ratio of 1 to 1000 to actually be true.

On the other hand, I've met plenty of people who thought that they had worked hard, then given up, and told themselves that it was impossible and stopped trying. I've never met one of them that actually achieved success.

Occasionally you will find someone who was talented, and worked hard, and expected the world to be dropped in his lap. This type of person is almost always disappointed. Success rarely will come to you; it's something you have to go and take.

Re:in all honesty.....

[NoYob]

A dirty, dark secret of Google's is that their main product, a search engine was a copy of AltaVista, which also had the dirty secret of being a copy of Aliweb.

It's software. When you have the same problem, you're going to solve in a very similar manner. Unless the algorithms are the same, having the functionality being the same isn't copying. Linux is a copy of Unix but the underlying code is completely different.

Re:in all honesty.....

[phantomfive]

Spoken like someone who has no idea how the world works. Success doesn't come to you like the lottery......people who win the lottery tend to lose it again quickly. It isn't about connections....who is going to help out a 'connection' who has nothing to give in return? Of course nobody wants to help them, those people are leaches.

We don't live in a 19th century Marxist oppression society anymore. We live in a land of freedom, where if you create things people value, you can get paid for it. In general the more value you create, the more you will get paid.

Of course, there are some tricksters who manage to get paid more than they are worth, but you will see these on all levels of society, from the poor to the rich. In fact, some of your coworkers are probably like that right now.

Re:in all honesty.....

[palegray.net]

Your argument is old and tired. I've achieved success in my life through study and hard work; I still put in 12-14 hour days working to build my future. I've got many friends who have done the same, and none of us have achieved what we have through deception. Working hard in the relative short term for long term payoffs is nothing new; you sound like someone who feels like he's been dealt a "raw deal" in life. Most likely, you just haven't worked hard enough.

Re:in all honesty.....

[nomadic]

I still put in 12-14 hour days working to build my future.

That doesn't sound like a success. And I'm not trying to be mean, I work those same kinds of hours, and my main life goal now is to achieve as much leisure as practical.

Re:in all honesty.....

[vux984]

I doubt it, why do you think that?

Because the top, the top couple percent, the people who make up the 'rich and powerful' is a pretty rarefied group. And its not possible for most people to make it here, no matter how hard they work at it.

It's rare that I've met people who worked hard in a directed way without becoming quite successful

Define 'quite successful'. Per the context of the conversation: it was intended to mean 'got on top', true wealth and power.

It was not 'middle class' and 'able to retire in relative comfort as long as nothing seriously expensive happens to them'. Because you are right, this is certainly generally achievable goal. And I suspect that THIS is what you mean. But it isn't what I was talking about.

And even that isn't a guarantee. If you work hard, save your money, etc most people will get here.

Unless, for example, you worked hard your whole life, got your nestegg and your, your pension, and are living comfortably, and then your pension is wiped out by institutional mismanagement wiping out most of your income, and simultaneously the value of your home plummets as a result of the general economic fallout wiping out your primary asset to borrow against. So you dip into your nest-egg for living expenses while you sell your depreciating home to extract the remaining equity to use as income... and then you fall down the stairs and have a $35,000 hospital stay wiping out a good chunk of your nest egg.

So... you worked hard, saved money, did everything right... and now you are renting, using the remains of your home equity as income, and wondering how you the hell you are ever going to pay for managed care in another few years. "Maybe I could be a walmart greeter!" ...

Granted this isn't going to happen to MOST people, but the point stands. Working hard and being fiscally responsible isn't a guarantee.

But don't confuse THIS with the 1000:1 ratio... THAT was in reference to making it to the top. Of the 1000 people who 'fail' to make it to the top; sure, most of them end up 'quite successful'... just nowhere near the top.

Re:in all honesty.....

[vux984]

You know, if everyone used that excuse as a reason not to work hard toward their goals, zero progress would be made in the world

What the hell are you on about? Its not a reason not to work hard toward goals. I NEVER suggested people shouldn't work hard or use it as an excuse for not trying.

Any given world leader, business pioneer, or great contributor to the sciences could have been hit by a bus instead of going on to live a successful life. That didn't stop them, and it shouldn't stop anyone else.

Right but there are lots of people who did try hard enough, perhaps as hard or even harder than people who did succeed... who did get hit by a bus or otherwise didn't succeed in the end.

My point is that 'trying hard and making good choices' is absolutely the right thing to do. I agree people should do that. But you need to recognize that it still might not work out.

And judging people as 'didn't try hard' and 'made bad choices' simply based on whether or not they succeeded is complete bullshit.

Look at any election for example. Only one candidate wins. Are you saying the one that lost didn't try hard enough? That's absurd. They can both pour their entire being into getting elected, and one of them still has to lose. Life is like that in general. Losing doesn't mean you didn't do your very best.

Even if you do do your very best, you can still lose.

That's not an excuse for not trying.

But the OP essentially said, "look at me, I work hard and I'm doing great. Everyone can be successful like me if they work hard." And that's bullshit. Even if everyone worked hard, not all of them will be successful. And they don't deserve to die poor on the street of treatable health issues simply because life didn't work out for them like it has for the OP.

Re:in all honesty.....

[vux984]

Of course I am not saying everyone can get in the top two percent, that is meaningless.

Exactly!!! Thank you. That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Of course its impossible.

You could do that too.....practically anyone could, maybe you won't make billions like he did but you could easily make millions.

You were bang on with the first part, why did you stumble here? Its essentially exactly the same meaningless tautology you correctly debunked, yet now you are appealing to it. "anyone could do what buffet does, and make millions, if not billions".

No they couldn't!! Even if they all tried their very best, most of them won't make millions. A bunch of them will still go broke; a bunch of them will die in car accidents, a bunch of them will get expensive diseases.

Its not merely that "everyone can't be in the top 2%". "Everyone can't succeed". "Everyone can't even be in the top 99%". Someone has to be at the very bottom, even if everyone tries their very best.

Yes, but is it illegal?

[noundi]

I don't understand. TFA mentions nothing about any legal issues. Unless there's any patent infringement or trademark issues I don't see why this should be frowned upon. I don't care if Reframe is a small struggling company, as a consumer I want as many companies tearing eachother apart at the same time -- providing me with better services and lower prices. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that hinders development, and no the product might be very similar but it is not an exact copy, and even if it was I would never side with the people whom I do business with -- as that would be completely idiotic. I'm not even going to bother with the car analogies as you all know how silly this type of reasoning would be if it was applied there. What's next? Are we going to point fingers at Mozilla for not inventing the concept of the browser?

Re:Yes, but is it illegal?

[Quothz]

I don't understand. TFA mentions nothing about any legal issues. Unless there's any patent infringement or trademark issues I don't see why this should be frowned upon.

Eh? It talks about them in some depth. It notes that RI's patents are pending so it can't sue until they issue, but it can amend them to strengthen a potential action. It has some discussion of their copyrights, as well.

Re:Yes, but is it illegal?

[HKcastaway]

It should be frowned upon because it is unethical to go around and try to poach staff....

Google is the larger player with the largest user base around so, in your "sold out view", it should be OK to hurt the small player so the mass market can get something for free right?

Evidence?

[RichardDeVries]

[...] this eWeek article has some interesting evidence, including suspicious user registrations by Google employees and an attempt by Google to hire off ReframeIt's lead engineer.

The article doesn't have any evidence. Low-res screenshots with a few arrows aren't convincing, even if they did look alike. If you're writing an online annotation solution, it's quite probable it will look something like your competitor's product (and like a few other things in sidebars).
As for the user registrations: if none of the Reframe It employees have registered with Google to check out Sidewiki, they're stupid.
Trying to hire off a lead engineer? I'd consider that a compliment, for the engineer as well as for the company. And he refused, didn't he?
Furthermore, the article states clearly that the Reframe It CEO "doesn't want to sue Google," but rather, "By going public, Fishkin is hoping to get his story out there and see what happens next." The whining, cowardly 'see what sticks' - approach to competitiveness.

Re:Oh, oh, I know this one!

[leenks]

WTF does "suspicious user registrations by Google employees" supposed to mean? Google has over 22,000 full-time employees (who knows how many part-time). I'm willing to bet that a decent percentage of them are web savvy because...well..that's what they do.

Exactly. If Google employees were not registering for all sorts of new services I'd almost be concerned!

Also, how do they know that certain registrations are Google employees? Probably because they users' email was @google.com. So, let's see if I have this straight, Google decided to steal this startups (fairly obvious) idea and couldn't be bothered to at least hide it by using gmail.com and not google.com? Or maybe Yahoo! or Hotmail. Right...

Why do they need to hide it? I'd be expecting Google employees to be checking out the competition all the time. You cannot patent an idea, so I can't see quite where the problem is. This is one idea why getting startup funding for stuff that is obvious or easy to copy is so hard!

Paradoxically funny on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Day 1: "Patents and copyright are bad. At a stretch they do nothing good for us, but most likely they severly damage creativity and development"

Day 2: "The Evil Consuming Google has just illegally ripped off the product of a small competitor; punish them!"

Shouldn't Google get a medal for saying "up yours" to the copyright and patent system?

Re:Paradoxically funny on Slashdot

[macshit]

...if you look at the comments, you'll notice that everybody pretty much thinks the small startup is full of shit, and google did nothing wrong (whether they copied the idea from this startup -- and the "evidence" for that seems pretty dubious -- or not).

Re:Google's social support a license to harm minor

[black3d]

Except they don't have a valid claim. The idea is not new, and almost every other web annotation product (thats right, there were plenty around before either of these) uses very similar toolbar interfaces. Of course, comparing to one of these other products isn't nearly as cool as comparing it to Google and trying to make a "big evil corporation" vs "little innocent hard-working can-do american-way startup" case.

I produced a paint program for Win 3.11 quite a number of years ago and ZOMG THE PAINT PROGRAM IN WINDOWS 95 IS ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME! IT ALSO DRAWS LINES, BOXES, FILLS AND TEXT! And the line tool looks like a line! And the box tool looks like a box! They totally ripped me off. That's right. Me. Never mind that there's plenty of other paint programs out there with the same features and the same look and basic arrangement. Nevermind that virtually every paint program since the Amstrad has alligned tools on the left, canvas on the right, and menu at top. Nope, I'm going to sue Microsoft because they ripped off *MY* product.

I am of course, being sarcastic. This is however, the exact point of view of the company in question. A Big Evil Corporation (BEC) has produced the same product that they, and several other companies have. However, the BEC version is free, and thus, is going to pull away any possible revenue they may gain. Even then, that point of view is flawed. There are still plenty of mail products, despite gmail. There are still plenty of office applications, despite gdocs. There are still plenty of other instant messaging clients in use, despite google talk. Etc etc etc. If you innovate, you'll survive. If you merely borrow other peoples ideas and produce a vanilla product that does the same, and then sue anybody else who produces the same, borrowed, vanilla product, you won't get far.

Where's the mode for

[Nursie]

+1, inspiringly naive

It would be nice to live in your world.

Re:Where's the mode for

[Runaway1956]

I always love these self justifications for being successful. Yeah, to be really successful, you have to work hard, you have to have some brights, of course. But, you don't mention anything about luck, or inspiration, or maybe taking credit for someone else's work. No - it's the "I'm special, I deserve it" line, all the way.

Yeah, I'm a little bit bitter. Many people are. Maybe some of us who never made it into the big time don't deserve the millions. Maybe we didn't work quite hard enough, maybe we weren't quite bright enough. But, we've also been ripped off from time to time, by the guys who DID make it to the top.

Go ahead, pat your selves on the back. Feel good about yourself. I don't know you, personally, so I can't say if you deserve it or not.

But, please, don't try to convince the world that the system is working right, or that it's self correcting, and that we all deserve to be at the bottom of the food chain.

Remember the stock market crash? Remember the big dudes lining up for government welfare? The "To big to fail" people?

Sorry, but most of us see corrupt sons of bitches watching out for each other. Joe gives Bill huge campaign donations, Bill gets into offie, then Joe goes bankrupt. BUT, Bill now has the power to rob all the taxpayers to help Joe avoid bankruptcy. Now, Joe is ripping off those same taxpayers/consumers to ensure that he'll have money on hand NEXT election.

Meanwhile, Bill and Joe are both hiring illegal aliens, and outsourcing our jobs to wherever they can pay the least money.

Don't worry about us simple taxpayers and consumers. You guys at the top deserve all that money, and we deserve none.

Re:Where's the mode for

[rtb61]

Now, doesn't that really depend upon your measure of success. Say for example you just want to be generally healthy and happy, have very little desire to dominate and control others, well, that doesn't really require all that much effort at all, in fact excess effort tends to detract and not add to that lifestyle. As it turns out of fact you need to spend more time preventing other over achieving 'successful' types from attempting to destroy your peaceful lifestyle in order to feed their ego and fear driven control freak lifestyle.

Hmm, lonely at the top, could it possibly be because they are the enemy of a generally healthy and happy societies rather than their friend. After all by the measure of wealth you are only as successful ie. rich as the majority is poor, and you don't so much strive to have more as you strive for everyone else to have less, it's called profit. Work to live, live to work or even live to force others to work 'ew'.

Re:It's called capitalism.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

That's what capitalism is all about. Competition.

But what about all those inventors and creative types. Aren't they entitled to monopolises and control an entire market sector based on the fact that they were the first to file a completely straightforward innovation? Why must they be subject to the same competitive forces as every other field of human endeavour?