Instagram CEO On Allegations That His App Has Copied Snapchat (foxbusiness.com)

It's no secret that Facebook has taken inspiration from Snapchat, an app it couldn't purchase. The flagship features of Snapchat are now available across all of Facebook's owned services. But how do Facebook executives address the accusations that Facebook is copying Snapchat? In a Q&A with WSJ, Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom said: Stories is definitely similar to Snapchat. I think anyone would say that. The first time you see a product show up somewhere else it feels a lot like copying but imagine a world where the only car was the Ford Model T. I'm really glad there are a lot of car companies producing different cars. Just because they have wheels and windows and AC doesn't mean that you're copying. You've got DreamWorks and Pixar and Disney, they're all doing computer-animated film. That doesn't mean they're copying each other. They're building upon a technology. I would just judge [Stories] based on how many people use it actively, which is over 200 million every day. It clearly provides unique value to people that they're not getting elsewhere.

Comments

Difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

Difference between cars and these internet tech is obviously that copyright of car designs have already lost their intellectual property protection, since it was invented in 1900's or somewhere, and copyright only lasts 70 years. These internet technologies are completely different ballgame, since all the tech in these products still have patents and copyright protections still ongoing...

Obviously if you company is accused of copying the competitor's products, the best course of action is to deny it -- but can't they figure out better concepts than cars which already lost their protection long ago?

Re:Difference...

[TWX]

I guess that if I see any complaint, it should not be due to the reimplemented function, but due to Facebook's status as effectively being a monopoly.

A good comparison is probably looking at Microsoft through its history. Microsoft was sought to effectively be a horizontal monopoly with its OS in that they worked very hard to dominate the OS market to the near-exclusion of just about every other OS from the average consumer's point of view, and to be a vertical monopoly in that every time some third-party software became wildly succcessful, Microsoft duplicated its functionality into their OS, and they used their dominant positions in both OS and in productivity software to reinforce the other.

Unfortunately as we saw through the years when Microsoft's position as a monopoly was litigated, even favorable rulings do not necessarily mean judgements that will help. Microsoft's position as OS vendor and basically integrating the functions of those that wrote software for its platform is well documented, and even when there were rulings that stated Microsoft had overstepped its position that did not mean that Microsoft was forced to stop developing in that market, or that they were forced to write software for other platforms. If anything, Microsoft's position vis-a-vis Apple and the Macintosh was partially one of personal friendship with Steve Jobs and partially one that allowed Microsoft to cite that it did make software for other platforms so it wasn't a true monopoly. Ultimately many of the rulings against Microsoft simply required it to make-available choices for other companies' software, or for on new computers, to provide links to download those other companies' software, which probably led to the crapware that became so popular to preload on so many new PCs, because it could be cited as a form of choice for the consumer to deflect from the monopoly label.

Facebook is not doing anything differently than Microsoft did, or arguably Google does. They're theoretically not the only player as a social platform (dominant and near-monopoly but could cite Google+, MySpace, LiveJournal, Blogger, Tumblr, etc), and theoretically these third-party applications are not entirely blocked (though I gather that sometimes APIs are yanked-out and third-party developers have to scramble to fix) so they're probably protected from the arguments about copying because these are normal industry practices. The only difference is that it's a different platform (ie social media) but that doesn't mean that it's anything special.

Re:Difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi codex!

Re:Difference...

[phantomfive]

The thing that Microsoft did that was really annoying was to prevent computer manufacturers from installing anything other than Windows on their computers. Although the focus was heavily on Netscape in the trial, in my mind their deals with manufacturers were worse.

real first post, not a copycat

[Anonymous Coward]

All first posts in this thread are copies.

Re:real first post, not a copycat

[TWX]

All first posts in this thread are copies.

Apparently yours included.

Copyright

[houghi]

Unfortunately that is how copyright works. If copyright where as it was now, Benz would have been suing the hell out of Ford for copying their car.

Re:Copyright

[fluffernutter]

Round wheels! You can't use round wheels!

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it would be a patent if anything, copyright is for written works, photographs, computer code etc.

Re:Copyright

[Anubis IV]

Unfortunately that is how copyright works.

No, that is not at all how copyright works. Maybe you confused them with patents?

Copyright's role is more or less to protect expressions of ideas. You can't copyright facts, but you can copyright the way you displayed those facts. You can't copyright putting paint on a canvas, but you can copyright a particular painting done on canvas. You can't copyright a feature in software, but you can copyright the code comprising your implementation for that feature.

In the case of software, copyright is what keeps someone from selling your code as their own, but it does nothing to keep them from implementing a feature you thought of first. Registering a trademark (or design patent, which functions similarly to a trademark) may keep someone else from making software that's indistinguishable from yours, but it can't be used to protect features that do anything useful (i.e. provide utility), so it basically only be used to protect eye candy features. Utility patents can be used to keep someone else from implementing your invention, but given that math is disallowed from being patented (it can only be discovered, not invented), most of us would contend that software patents are invalid, simply because software = algorithms = math.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

>Unfortunately that is how copyright works

You have got to be kidding.

You can't copyright a car. That's what patents are for.

You copyright ideas (images, songs, etc.).

As far as how IP is treated in the modern world, yep.

Re:Copyright

[gnick]

Utility patents can be used to keep someone else from implementing your invention, but given that math is disallowed from being patented (it can only be discovered, not invented), most of us would contend that software patents are invalid, simply because software = algorithms = math.

Are you suggesting that all code has existed forever but was waiting to be discovered? I'm not sure I agree.

With some of the code I've written, it would have been better left "undiscovered." I'd call these failures "failed inventions" rather than "worthless discoveries."

Re:Copyright

[Anubis IV]

Are you suggesting that all code has existed forever but was waiting to be discovered?

Nope. There's a distinction between algorithms, which are ideas that are discovered, and code, which are expressions of those ideas.

Algorithms are just a series of mathematical steps, so whether we're talking about the algorithm for integration in calculus or the algorithm for the search of a binary tree, they are indeed discovered. So far as utility patent law is concerned, software is merely a collection of algorithms, so there's no basis for thinking we should be able to use utility patents to protect software.

Code, however, is not the same thing as an algorithm. Code is an implementation of an algorithm: an expression of an idea. In much the same way that I can express a sunset in paint or in prose, I can express an algorithm via code, a diagram, or by building it in Minecraft. Code is neither discovered nor invented: it's written. Which comes back around to why it can be, and is, protected by copyright.

Re:Copyright

[houghi]

I wish, But Apple disagrees with you. Round corners.

Yes, I know it is stupid and that is not how it should work, but you can bet that they would have tried to pull it of.

Re:Copyright

[Anubis IV]

I wish, But Apple disagrees with you. Round corners.

You've been misinformed if you think that's copyright. That rounded corners thing is a design patent. Not a utility patent and certainly not a copyright.

No!

[phantomfive]

"No!" said Snapchat CEO Kevin Systrom. "Our app has so many features. Just in identification of viewers alone, our databases can target age and income better than anyone else around except Google. We can divide the market up by interest and gender and our product placement.......I mean narrative tools are the best around so you can get your story out. Our analytics are the best"

After an aid came up and whispered in Systrom's ear, he spoke again with a slightly more bashful look. "I mean......take pictures. Lots of them. Our pictures are the best pictures. Try our filters, ok, thanks."

After the conference, the CEO was heard to accidentally whisper on an open mike, "Why am I talking to the proles? Who set up this meeting? I want them fired. They should take full responsibility.....it was me? What? OK, no you're fired."

Interesting.

[Jack Zombie]

So many words, and yet they're all half-lies.

He reminds me of the Iraqi Information Minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, but then again what guy with a PR team preparing their words doesn't?

Re:He didn't copy Snapchat

[bill_mcgonigle]

Snapchat copied Wechat.

So Snapcat started out as an app for kids to send nudes to each other but once the "disappearing messages" feature was found out to be entirely marketing, they copied Wechat instead and then did an IPO?

Dreamworks and Pixar and Disney?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Two of those are the same company...

Re:Dreamworks and Pixar and Disney?

[im_thatoneguy]

Same parent company but Disney Animation is a different subsidiary from Pixar Animation.

Why do you keep singling out this company?

[chispito]

Of all the copycat software, why does Snapchat copying keep hitting the front page? Does it really matter? If the Snapchat version of Snapchat isn't compelling enough for people to prefer, why should people care?

Global monopoly regulated by national regulator

[Britz]

Microsoft could have easily been properly regulated. They could have simply forced them to brake up and isolate the companies that have monopolies from other parts. It would have resulted in three companies. Windows, Office and the rest (XBox, for example).

Same with Facebook. You could acknowledge the social monopoly and split other parts like messengers or picture apps off from the main company. Or Google.

But those are all international monopolies. The US government obviously sees more benefit in letting US companies be international monopolies. As any other national government would, I suppose. This is simply the result of global markets vs national regulators. China blocked Facebook and Google from completely.

Re:Global monopoly regulated by national regulator

[TheCastro1689]

Why break them up, they provide all the info the NSA and others want in just a handful of neat little bundles.

Re:He didn't copy Snapchat

[AvitarX]

It wasn't entirely marketing.

It required active malice to defeat. It was a great way to send messages to people without risk that the entire trove of everything you ever sent shows up years later.

True, someone acting with malice could save them, but it wasn't really to protect against that, it did a great job of making conversations in the moment and ephemeral.

Someone with malice can record every conversation you have with them in person too.

I don't think Snapchat ever marketed itself as secure, it marketed itself as self deleting.

Failed analogies...

[Anonymous Coward]

The car industry protects itself mainly using design patents... and Pixar, Disney and DreamWorks don't have any problem except if one of the others does Fantasia, Toy Story or any other title exactly the same and names it differently, you can be sure they'll sue and wreck havoc on the other company. On that note, might be exactly what Instagram is doing, but then again it's in another industry with slightly different rules: one would have had to copy the code to infringe (well, could be design patents as well, but I'm unaware of any from Snapchat).

Who the fuck cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two shitty "social" apps that do exactly nothing worthwhile. Fuck off already

Snapchat copied Facebook's Poke app.

[sixsixtysix]

I'm pretty sure that Facebook's short-lived Poke app was out before SnapChat and it did the same thing: one-view text, pics and video, so who is really copying who here?