
Google and Waze Cited for Traffic Data Theft in PhantomAlert Suit - chatmasta
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/09/03/google-and-waze-cited-for-traffic-data-theft-in-phantomalert-suit/?mod=ST1
======
shakethemonkey
Precedent is very much against PhantomAlert. Such data simply isn't
copyrightable. See Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.,
499 U.S. 340 (1991), which involved fictitious entries in a telephone book.

~~~
nieve
Precedent for general copyright, yes, but according to other news sources and
PhantomAlert comments they were in negotiations for data-sharing that fell
through. The chances those weren't covered by NDAs as well as likely more
stringent contractual obligations is very low, so there's a contractual
element. It's very different for me to sue you over data you've scraped than
for us to sign contracts covering what you're allowed to do with our data and
whether you're allowed to use it at all. In my experience financial data is
just about always fenced by contracts, simply trusting the guy's you've been
competing to take care of you is pure incompetence.

------
ars
Isn't it much more likely that random members added this data vs google
copying it?

~~~
bdcravens
According to the article, the claims are based on fake data points, which are
common among publishers to catch copying.

~~~
ars
I know. I'm assuming users saw the alert in one app, and copied it into
another.

It's not always easy to actually see the cameras, I can easily imagine users
just believing the other app.

Did the at least put the fake cameras in places like the middle of the ocean
where it would not actually every alert anyone?

