Slashdot Mirror
'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.
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.
i wrote like almost exactly the same thing a week ago...
..will defend Apple. That's all.
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.
Loading...
Maybe the problem is that everyone is doing the pretty much the same stuff. If there's not a lot of originality in what you're doing and you're not standing out, of course you'll be extremely easy to rip off.
Ezekiel 23:20
File this under "Old man yells at cloud".
So is the problem that one can't just sit back and stop working/innovating and expect to get paid? Because I'm OK with that. Let everyone copy my ideas, I'll just come up with more AND develop a reputation as a "Big Thinker" as a result ( ie: creating my own brand/value which I can then use elsewhere ).
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
This feels unfair when it happens to you, but it’s just how it goes, and the entire ecosystem benefits. Every app — even yours — includes countless “standard” and “obvious” features and designs that, at one time, weren’t. Everything is a remix. A great design or feature can give you a competitive advantage for a little while, but it’s always temporary. Compete on marketing, quality, and what you can do next, not the assumption that nobody can copy what you made.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Mickey Mantle makes $100,000 a year. How much does your father make? You don't know? Well, see if your father can't pay the rent go ask Mickey Mantle and see what he tells you. Mickey Mantle don't care about you, so why should you care about him? Nobody cares.
...but not LUDDITES who copy appy app apps by making LUDDITE software that tries to be appy, but requires using LUDDITE technology like LUDDITE keyboards and LUDDITE mice!
Apps!
Who is this guy, and why the heck are we supposed to listen to him?
FTFY
Apple will always claim that they did it first and much better than anyone else before them.
I bet large corporations would love to see patents go away, that way they can copy something for a million dollars vs having to buy out the startup.
Except the guy who copies it, and those who buy it from him so he makes bank.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Well, make it better then. I don't actually know what you are proposing. Are you suggesting there should only ever be one of each type of app? So as soon as the first guy knocked out a 'contacts' app everyone else should be forbidden from making another? An automatic patent on any idea? Please elaborate.
App feature duplication is bound to happen.
What you can do about it, is all around be more responsive.
Respond to reviews. People notice that.
Come out with helpful (not just churn) updates frequently. A larger company is going to have trouble keeping up any kind of rapid pace of change.
If my some miracle a competitor does come up with a good idea - well turnabout is fair play. Borg that idea and make it's uniqueness your own.
Charge more. Price of an app is one of the few signals have besides reviews as to quality. Given two apps with roughly the same reviews, one that costs more and looks better will be the winer.
To taht last point, do not be afraid to hire a real designer. Even just some basic help will not cost a ton and will make your app look SO much better (and probably work better too as most mobile designers are also good UX people).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Maybe this is telling us all that software apps are not as valuable as the VCs think they are. If it's that easy to copy, and there are effectively no barriers to copying, then what is the value? (The answer is marketing, of course... but that's the point, the software is not the value. Everyone needs to understand that ideas without implementation have no value, and that the value in implementation may come from a non-technical part of the business.)
I work in a nanotech startup. Competitors have bought our products to evaluate (reverse engineer). That's fine by me, copying our technology is ridiculously difficult. They quickly figure out that they're better off simply buying from us, which is what generally happens. We don't have to feel good that we set someone else's roadmap. In our case, the technical implementation is most of our value.
Who cares? If you don't like them, the don't use their products.
I hate fat people.
Ideas are a dime a dozen. In fact, when you think about it, ideas are an expense. It is the execution that matters.
This is very true. I had a mentor of mine once point out that if you think you have an idea that nobody else has thought of then you should put down whatever you are smoking. Protecting an idea is very expensive so it had better be a really good one to be worth the bother. Coca-Cola is a multi-billion dollar company and they have a product that is ridiculously easy to knock off. But their business execution is second to none and for most products that is what really matters. This remains true even if you have a product that justifies patents and other idea protection. You still have to execute or someone else will figure out a way to make a buck in your place.
Nobody cares, only the content mafia.
Here we have an article that points out that the law can be a joke. It has always been true. Imagine that a poor person seriously wrongs you. The poor are exempt from most civil suits. After all, it costs money to win a suit and if you win there is no money to collect and likely may never be money to collect. That means that a large section of law only applies to people who have something to lose. In a way it is the opposite of criminal law. In criminal law the person who is poor will suffer a lot more than a person who can afford good lawyers. Income and wealth diversity have taken the idea of equal justice for all and dumped them in the trash can.
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.
A mere $20k marketing budget is not going to buy you much of a competitive advantage, and certainly not against "any adversary big enough to matter". Their $200k marketing budget (if not $2M or more) is going to crush you. The only defense you have against them is patents.
"But if you try to sue them, they'll bury you in legal fees!"
Yes and no... First, those big cases are the ones firms will take on contingency - look at Microsoft v. i4i and their $450M judgement. Law firms will happily defer fees for a bite at those. So even if they try to bury you, they're not really burying you, but your lawyers who are willing to take on that risk.
Second, you don't have to be involved at all: if you have a giant adversary, then odds are you probably have two giant adversaries. So if one steals your idea, then approach the other with an offer to assign the patent to them (with a royalty-free grantback license to you). They'll go after your competitor for you, you get a chunk of capital (and possibly royalties) that you wouldn't have had otherwise, and you can still practice your invention. At worst, you end up competing with one giant adversary rather than two or more.
Mr. Arment should probably stick to developing apps, rather than offering legal advice.
My company doesn't bother with patents. We have competitors, and many of the apps have many of the same features. We compete on quality and service (and maybe price but I don't know about that). Somehow it's still worth improving our app even though our competitors are free to take our ideas and implement them independently.
Since you can't fight it, use the copy's as a badge of honor. In your app, in help or the about, or splash page, proudly display a list of the other apps that have copied your features. than add something like "Why go with the clones, go with the original.."
I'm just "this guy", you know?
sounds like you suck at marketing, if you didnt suck you would be making bank
I was agreeing with you up to this point. They probably have a ceasefire with their competitor over patents and just use jointly use them to keep out the riffraff.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
If it is that easy to copy you, it might not have even been "hard" work.
If you can't compete with somebody new who literally just saw what you were doing and roughly copied your motions, it might not have even been "work."
Innovation is just a buzzword. None of your thoughts were "new." Like any other second-hand items you come to possess, they may be "new to you," but they're not actually new.
If you don't protect the success of businesses you end up like Europe where there are no new companies ever, no new jobs, no new movies, no scientific breakthroughs, no new medical treatments or drugs, and everybody takes periodic steps to impoverishment.
Why are we listening to this guy?
His "breakthrough" in understanding isn't something people would want to steal.
> even if you get one ($20,000+ later), you can't afford to use it against any adversary big enough to matter
Right, so that's why there's a bunch of nobodies successfully suing fortune 500 companies in Texas.
Because the term "patent troll" doesn't exist.
I was agreeing with you up to this point. They probably have a ceasefire with their competitor over patents and just use jointly use them to keep out the riffraff.
Like Apple and Samsung? ;)
No, in your example, Coca Cola is big enough to crush any copier to dust by simply having their lawyers march in the immediate vicinity of the offender.
Tell that to Pepsi. Coca-Cola didn't get magically huge by having flesh eating lawyers. They got huge because they did a really good job making their product available, consistent, and relevant to their customers. It's not hard to copy the taste of Coke or any of their other drinks and there are countless other brands of cola available some of which arguably taste better. Coke succeeded because they executed the best. Also they aren't as big or as dominant as you seem to believe.
As a matter of fact, there are zounds of similar beverages out there, all over the world, but CC is so entrenched that all copiers combined have maybe 1% marked share compared to CC.
You might want to actually look up some facts before sounding stupid publicly. Coke has about 42% market share in soft drinks. Pepsi has about 30%. ARC Refreshments (the maker of RC Cola) has about 15% of the soft drink market. And the other players split the remaining 8%.
In the United States contingency is almost exclusively for personal injury cases. It is not something you can just plan for and assume you'll have access to. That is idiotic.
How general of a function must it be, there are some real great solutions that people use and they are all pretty much the same. What are the limitations on these. You know DRY... I cant imagine people typing these functions out over and over again.... carpal tunnel :(.
[($)]
But the line between "idea" and "expression" might not like exactly where you think it does. For example, moving and turning falling pieces to fill horizontal lines of a rectangular matrix is not protectable, but doing so where the pieces are made of four aligned squares is. Tetris v. Xio .
Well, if your patent is worth in the 100's of millions, sure. But I believe they do have a ceasefire over their giant arrays of stupid patents.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
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"?
At the smaller/individual development shop level, the idea that blowing off reacting to all but the most literal of copies of your work makes sense, and it's been a part of the lives of fashion designers since the beginning of time.
This is likely the primary driver for why fashion and fabrics change so fast, because fashion can't be copyrighted, and a successful design will attract knockoffs before a year is out.
My suspicion, based on the hassles s/w shops large and small have dealing with patent search and lawsuits, is that for the industry and its customers, fashion has it right . It sucks to have popular ideas ripped off, but it sucks even more for just about everyone to be prevented from exploiting ideas at all because of well heeled rent collectors.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Hey! Don't go trying to glam onto the glory of other people's credit snatching! :)
A web / iphone developer shooting his virtual mouth off online about complex legal matters is claiming that people who don't follow his incorrect advice about I.P. protection are "assholes"?
Maybe the asshole is in your bathroom mirror, Marco.
In the meantime, patents are useful in the real world, the extremely small percentage of abuse articles we see on slashdot doesn't change that.
The comments on how the public perceives what you do reminds me of the SEA vs PKARC lawsuit back in the day. They ended up settling, and the settlement meant that SEA essential won, legally,but the online chatter about the suit, and people's perceptions about what SEA was attempting to do (IIRC, SEA's attempt to claim proprietary ownership of ARC file formats and (particularly galling) the .ARC extension did not go over well) meant that SEA went from having a defacto monopoly to being an also-ran fairly quickly. The settlement required that PKware come up with their own formats, and they did. As soon as PKZip was considered stable, pretty much the whole online community switched from ARC to Zip formats overnight.
PKware, in light of the community's reaction, didn't make proprietary claims about their format, which eventually made it possible for zip format to be public, and available in free (as in speech) versions.
I never said we were the first to ever come up with anything. No idea where you got that from my comment actually.
That is a very bad translation indeed, but hey it's always fun on the internet to pretend you know more about someone's life than they know themselves, so have at it.
You seem to have two different narratives about patents going on. One is that they're completely worthless, and the other is that only stupid or venal companies don't use them. Seems like a contradiction.
On the whole I'd say your comment is overrated even at -1.