'Nobody Cares Who Was First, and Nobody Cares Who Copied Who': Marco Arment on Defending Your App From Copies and Clones (marco.org)

Marco Arment: App developers sometimes ask me what they should do when their features, designs, or entire apps are copied by competitors. Legally, there's not a lot you can do about it: Copyright protects your icon, images, other creative resources, and source code. You automatically have copyright protection, but it's easy to evade with minor variations. App stores don't enforce it easily unless resources have been copied exactly. Trademarks protect names, logos, and slogans. They cover minor variations as well, and app stores enforce trademarks more easily, but they're costly to register and only apply in narrow areas.

Only assholes get patents. They can be a huge PR mistake, and they're a fool's errand: even if you get one ($20,000+ later), you can't afford to use it against any adversary big enough to matter. Don't be an asshole or a fool. Don't get software patents. If someone literally copied your assets or got too close to your trademarked name, you need to file takedowns or legal complaints, but that's rarely done by anyone big enough to matter. If a competitor just adds a feature or design similar to one of yours, you usually can't do anything. You can publicly call out a copy, but you won't come out of it looking good. [...] Nobody else will care as much as you do. Nobody cares who was first, and nobody cares who copied who. The public won't defend you.

Comments

"Only assholes get patents" - stupidity

[Assmasher]

Many companies, including my own, obtain patents for defensive purposes. I have zero interest in attacking someone, but you will find it virtually impossible to obtain seed (much less VC or strategic) funding without a plan for providing even rudimentary protections for your IP - most especially if you're building something for an existing market (where doubtlessly there are existing patents.)

That doesn't absolutely guarantee you wont be sued by some other asshole who uses patents to attack, but it keeps them from trying to make a quick buck off of you, and it makes it significantly less likely.

Re:"Only assholes get patents" - stupidity

[cloud.pt]

that's true, but it also means VC and other funding entities simply neglect how useless some types of patents are. Independently of patent strength, VC is always looking for previous value - money already spent. And patents, like existing human resources or other tangible and intangible assets, are effectively a future cost removed, i.e. money that will not enter future accounting and depreciate their potential position.

In the end, like many those other assets, patents are as volatile as employee exodus or asset depreciation, and I expect the importance VC puts in those is not much different. They already know it's a gamble from a lot of factors, but it's one they have to place trust in mildly less volatile stuff, and that's patents.

Re:Right...and?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

So is the problem that one can't just sit back and stop working/innovating and expect to get paid?

The problem is that if you come up with a great app, a company will come along, copy it, and put marketing dollars behind it. You won't "not continue to make money", your app won't have time to go viral before someone else's does. Look at Farmville - it was a pretty direct clone of an existing game. However, Zanga was able to copy it and market it such that more people saw Farmville first than the original. So the original developer didn't "develop a reputation", Zynga did. So the original developer didn't "stop getting paid", Zynga took all the money.

It repeats again and again. It's fine to say that don't like 95 year copyrights (we agree). It's another to say "your work will be ripped off by someone with a PR budget, and fuck you."

Re:Patents are too expensive, so spend on marketin

[Theaetetus]

In the United States contingency is almost exclusively for personal injury cases. It is not something you can just plan for and assume you'll have access to. That is idiotic.

Well, as a patent attorney at a large law firm, I can tell you you're absolutely incorrect. Frankly, I have no idea where you got this idea. Not only do most firms have contingent fee arrangements, there are also investors who will invest specifically for the purpose of funding a lawsuit.

Where did you get this misconception, and why are you so adamant that the alternative possibility is "idiotic"?