
Defending your app from copies and clones - kawera
https://marco.org/2018/02/22/your-app-was-copied
======
whalesalad
"Only assholes get patents."

Marco rubs me the wrong way. Blanket statements like this are not meaningful.

What the post is saying is: there is nothing you can do. At the end of the day
it doesn't matter who does it first, it matters who does it best. Do it best
and you'll win.

Very clickbaity title. This could have been a tweet (and it was:
[https://twitter.com/sandofsky/status/966721199052013568](https://twitter.com/sandofsky/status/966721199052013568))

~~~
makecheck
If patents were usefully enforced and practical to obtain, it _would_ matter
who files first because that’s how patents work.

The $20,000 part of patents (and additional legal fees) are a problem because
we are clearly at the point economically where tons of people who need
stronger protections will never have the resources to obtain those
protections. You can’t do that when it’s impossible to sell anything for more
than 99 cents.

~~~
0xCMP
And we can't expect everyone to pay more for many of these things when there
is so much inequality, lack of wage increases, student debt, etc. etc. etc.

Of course I go ahead and pay $50/year for ulysses or $20 for each Things 3
app, but my sister won't pay $3/m to iCloud on her filled up iPhone nor $5/m
to Spotify or Apple Music to listen to music.

------
vtange
For the longest time now I've always held a bit of bias towards closed-source
software, but over time I'm slowly realizing that open source is probably the
way to go.

If you look at the world as if it was running on a tech tree in a video game,
making closed source technology only forces people to retrace your
footsteps(re-research the tech, if you will) or worse, find a better
alternative (leaving you and your creation in the dust). By open-sourcing, you
effectively stake a flag with your name on it in the tech tree and incentivize
people to use your creation as a foundation for future techs. Sure, people
will be free to use copies of your work at will, but they still have to give
credit to you, and won't be trying to do things differently.

And that's not even mentioning that open-source stuff generally has a PR-boost
compared to closed-source. If you make something closed-source, you will
always have to worry about the appearance of an open-source competitor. I have
seen closed-source stuff be completely eclipsed by open-source alternatives
once the latter reached a critical level of quality. I mean think about it:
Unreal Engine 4 is open source, would anyone start a closed-source project to
compete against it? All the best minds will naturally ask you, 'Why not just
work on UE4?' Yes you can fork it, but the public will always turn to the
original of the fork unless your fork achieves something really different in a
good way.

So in a way, open-source is the most asshole-way you can do things cause it
shuts down any idea of a copy/similar alternative to your work.

~~~
meheleventyone
UE4 isn’t open source. You get source access with the license but it’s quite
restrictive on what you can actually do with it. If you tried to setup a
competing engine based on a fork of it you would quickly find yourself being
sued.

Godot would be an example of an open source game engine.

~~~
vtange
Thanks for the clarification. I believe UE4 is still a good example of how the
PR-bias towards anything 'open-source'. All it took was a few headlines with
"Unreal" and "open-source" and I naturally grouped it with the likes of
Blender and Godot.

~~~
meheleventyone
Right but all that means is that Epic were able to exploit a lack of
understanding. Not really that noble or exceptional. There is a PR bias
towards open source because it’s seen as a selfless act to provide free
software. Conflating that with commercial software such as UE4 actually takes
away from that since it dupes the unwary.

------
magnetic
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.

~~~
samastur
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.

~~~
magnetic
> 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?

------
makecheck
All good points but I would add that you should never make it _easy_ for
people to copy valuable things from you if you depend on being unique.

Unfortunately what’s easiest for programmers is pretty easy to copy. For
example, any ordinary file in an app bundle is dead simple to copy (and
unfortunately the most straightforward APIs for using data from code will
assume that files are plainly located in the bundle, which I always felt was a
bit of a design oversight).

One fairly low-effort defense against copying is to use your program to
reassemble valuable data from parts. For example, instead of having easily-
stolen complete files in your bundle, store a variety of bits and pieces that
only the program knows how to assemble correctly. You can even create a
technically-corrupt/invalid binary file and then have your program restore the
bits that you know you removed. Obviously this is an extra pain to do but if
you really need to reduce the chance of losing to a competitor then it may be
worth the trouble. (Note that this isn’t foolproof either, as clever people
can still figure out what a program actually does; it’s just way better than
doing nothing.)

------
GuiA
This reminds me of when the game 2048 came out, and became hugely popular. It
was mostly a clone of the game “Threes”, released a few months prior, which
while popular was less so because it was iOS only whereas 2048 could be played
freely in the browser.

Here’s the developer’s statement at the time:

[http://asherv.com/threes/threemails/](http://asherv.com/threes/threemails/)

The press and public opinion was mostly on the side of the Threes developer,
perhaps because they were already fairly well respected in the indie game dev
community; see for instance

[https://www.wired.com/2014/05/threes-game-
design](https://www.wired.com/2014/05/threes-game-design)

I mostly agree with Marco’s advice; but if you have your peers’ trust and
approval, calling out your copycats seems like it might work in your favor (by
bringing attention to your product for people who only know the copy). Or
rather, let your hardcore fans call out the copy cats for you, and be brutally
candid in your reaction - the devlog format of the Threes developers’ response
was perfect for that.

------
lettergram
> 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.

Okay - Google patented their search. It's enabled them to stop the whole
industry. Lets not go too far.

~~~
nugi
Is a sucessful asshole still an asshole?

------
gnicholas
> _You can publicly call out a copy, but you won’t come out of it looking
> good...These disputes are best kept private, or not fought at all_

Interesting take, considering how Marco has called out both Pocket (formerly
Read It Later) and Readability as having copied features that he claims to
have created first.

" _Weiner systematically copied almost every major Instapaper feature over the
first few years of Instapaper’s existence_ ", from
[https://marco.org/2013/02/21/the-first-read-later-
service](https://marco.org/2013/02/21/the-first-read-later-service)

and

" _Over the next few months, they continued adding mostly Instapaper-like
features to their service._ ", from
[https://marco.org/2011/11/16/readability](https://marco.org/2011/11/16/readability)

Perhaps his recent comments reflect how well his prior callouts were received?

EDIT: curious to know why this was downvoted. It wasn't meant as a dig at
all—I was pointing out that Marco has experience with callouts and might have
relevant expertise that many people lack. I would personally be very
interested to hear his experience went dealing with those issues.

~~~
Cyberdog
Don't know how much it will help, but I upvoted you.

I used to like Marco, but after following him a while and noticing
inconsistencies of principle like this, it got to me. (That, and when he said
in a podcast that he didn't use SQL joins when building Tumblr because he
doesn't like them. Trying to think about how he could have possibly
accomplished that makes me shudder.) I can give him the benefit of the doubt
that perhaps his perspectives have changed with age or experience, though.

All that said, I upvoted the OP too, because as much as I don't like the guy,
he's not wrong here.

------
notadoc
> Defending your __________ from copies and clones

Fill in the blank, and the same lessons apply.

Any idea, project, business, app, website, article, podcast, TV show, media
production, procedure, product, art, creation, etc are frequently copied and
cloned. And he's right, ultimately nobody cares.

Sometimes a copy or clone is better than an original. Sometimes a copy or
clone is much worse, but ends up successful because of positioning, luck,
marketing, or savvy.

Perhaps it's better to think of the risk of being copied or cloned as part of
the risk of business and creation. It just comes with the territory.

------
whoisjuan
"Only assholes get patents"... Everyone would get and enforce patents if it
weren't so hard and expensive to obtain them... I think saying don't get
software patents is terrible advice...

Of course, don't go and patent a mediocre interaction or technique, but
definitely, pursue a patent if you have worked hard on researching and
developing something that is key to your business and that could be used by a
better established and wealthier competitor to take a market advantage.

~~~
oldcynic
Would they? The few times I've had a conversation with people in software on
the topic, the conclusion has been they shouldn't exist. At all.

I'd venture to suggest that most software patents are the obvious way of doing
something. Even having read some attempts to justify them I see no merits in
patents for XOR cursors, online auctions or shopping carts.

------
landryraccoon
If one of your potential exit strategies is acquisition, patenting your
technology makes sense. Even if he's right that a startup can't afford to
defend it's patents, if Amazon/Facebook/Google/Apple acquires you your startup
is potentially 10x more valuable to them because they can definitely afford to
defend the patent.

------
aeorgnoieang
I stopped following Marco years ago because I didn't like the tone of his
writing, but this wasn't anything like what I remembered, or what I was
prepared to read based on other comments here. It was clear, well-written, and
not incendiary like I expected.

------
mankash666
I guess Marco really really LOVES assholes. His whole career revolves around
Apple/iOS, a company legendary for it's frivolous patents & history of
enforcing them vindictively when the competition's execution poses a threat.

How are copyrights or trademarks ANY different? Together, they constitute
essential tools in the knowledge/service economy. Demonizing patents but
favoring the other two is ignorance on Marco's behalf - no one wants frivolous
patents clogging the patent office, courts or legal departments of companies.

Apt advice would be to carefully research recent verdicts and legislation
around patents, and only apply for ones that merit the designation (yes - this
is very subjective).

~~~
moogleii
Maybe it was just me, but I got the sense the target audience of his piece was
individual or small teams. Hence, "even if you get one ($20,000+ later), you
can’t afford to use it against any adversary big enough to matter."

These comments citing Apple and Google with their effective use of patents as
some sort of counter argument seem to have missed the mark. Those guys are
certainly able to afford $20k, and they can certainly afford to take on any
adversary big enough to matter.

------
jaxondu
There is no opinion of him on Apple implementing features from third party
apps into it's platform. Would be interesting since he's such a big Apple fan.

~~~
oddevan
Remember that he also wrote Instapaper, the key feature of which was copied by
Apple: [https://marco.org/2011/04/30/lion-safari-reading-
list](https://marco.org/2011/04/30/lion-safari-reading-list)

------
paulsutter
Only assholes go around trying to enforce patents, especially as a business
model. But if you don’t get any patents, you’ll be really vulnerable to these
assholes

> 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.

~~~
criddell
I don't think I would have a problem with patents except for two things:

* the patent office seems to have a policy of grant-by-default

* the term is way too long for software patents

Grant 3-5 year patents and I think most of my objections would disappear.

------
vortico
Even if the content of this article is 99% my opinion, it's written in a
trashy way and makes me want to disagree with it.

I'm going to educate the public to avoid macro.org

------
Invictus0
Article body completely fails to address the task set forth in the title.
Don't waste your time.

