Item — HN Reader

I was a bit disappointed with the content of the article.

On the style, the generalization "Only assholes get patents" turned me off quickly.

But on the content itself, there wasn't much in there that related to the title of the article "Defending your app from copies and clones": the author talks about copyrights, and trademarks (not patents, because apparently it's only for assholes), but explains how little use it is: am I supposed to be encouraged or discouraged to follow those paths?

Then the rest seems to be an exercise in despair, convincing you that there's nothing you can do anyways and you're screwed.

I ended the read a bit perplexed, as I wasn't able to squeeze any substantific marrow.

3 comments

He was just distilling the real world implications of the 3 paths of IP in a succinct way. I agree with him on all points, and he is accurate in his statements. He's inviting you down from a pedestal you may have put you and your software on: if you create something great, expect to be copied, and expect it to be considered a standard feature when someone else does it. Because really, thats how "features" are born. You can trademark your name for it, which will make it harder to advertise the feature as the same.

I think this piece was intended as an eye opener, and a blunt one, because the world isn't going to soften its blows on you.

You obviously did, you just don't like it.

Everything in the article was related to the title, but I think your expectations were wrong. Instead of getting a list of things you can do to protect your app from copies, the author goes through the list of possible tools and explains why they don't really work.

However, this also means you can do the same thing to others without much fear so it really comes down to who can learn, adapt and create more quickly.

> You obviously did, you just don't like it.

Not really - It's just that I don't feel like I learned much: I already knew about the challenges he mentions. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. I was really interested in something "new" or "original" about it. That was my (perhaps misguided) expectation.

> Everything in the article was related to the title, but I think your expectations were wrong. Instead of getting a list of things you can do to protect your app from copies, the author goes through the list of possible tools and explains why they don't really work.

Yes, perhaps I shouldn't have set my expectations from the title "Defending your app from copies and clones", where I thought I was going to learn how to defend my app from copies and clones.

I think that's one reasonable interpretation of the title, although I can see how someone can argue that he never promised he'd give any solutions or original ideas in the title. It could indeed have meant "Defending your app from copies and clones: a lost cause". Those last 3 words I added do make it a better match for the content, don't you think?

Would have to say for most technology products, there are not much you can do. It is better if you keep your heads down and try to improve different aspects of your apps.

And try best not to compete directly with big players