An anonymous reader writes "Web annotation startup ReframeItclaim Google copied their web annotation product when releasing Google Sidewiki. At first glance, the products do look quite similar, and this eWeek article has some interesting evidence, including suspicious user registrations by Google employees and an attempt by Google to hire off ReframeIt's lead engineer."
I was expecting some damning evidence from the comparison shots [eweek.com], but it just looks like Google made their own implementation of the same features. Copying features happens, and it's not illegal.
Neither one of them is original. People have been coming out with "we'll let you annotate/comment on/mark up" web pages since at least 1999 (which is how far back I looked when the place I was working at came up with "this great new idea to comment on and rate web pages". After almost a week of discussions among themselves (owners and marketing) they told us about their "new idea." My response was "did you take even 5 minutes to check if someone has done it before? It's not new, it's stupid as shit because people who are looking for something aren't going to waste their time on rating search results, and it's not going to work because of spammers."
A month after we implemented it, Google came out with the same thing. At first, the boss' reaction was "See how good an idea it was?" Of course, the idea turned out to be a turkey ("McDonalds food tastes like shit" was one of the first comments for mcdonalds.com).
I remember this popping up back in the 90s as well, though I thought it was actually a good, if not especially novel, idea. The main issue isn't technological, it's just marketshare; in order for this to work right just about everyone has to be using the same service.
Or a standard agreed upon, so that the service provider doesn't matter...
They may have copied it. But it wouldn't be the first time. A dirty, dark secret of Google's is that their main product, a search engine was a copy of AltaVista, which also had the dirty secret of being a copy of Aliweb.
And if you look at it, Toyota's share a lot of the major functionality of Fords. They all have a round steering wheel, for example; do you think they came up with that by accident, or do you think they were looking at other cars? They may have even had Fords available at the Toyota design offices in Japan.
Seriously, if you have a small idea that takes a small team less than six months to create, then you better have a really good marketing, a good implementation and sharp execution, otherwise some big company is going to do the same thing and win because they have better visibility and more resources.
Seriously, if you have a small idea that takes a small team less than six months to create, then you better have a really good marketing, a good implementation and sharp execution, otherwise some big company is going to do the same thing and win because they have better visibility and more resources.
Unless its an invention in which case you can patent it for a dozen years. Or a work of 'art' that you can copyright until everyone alive today is dead.
So apparently some small ideas are very well protected, whil
For every one that succeeded in rising there are 1000 more who were just as talented and hard working who didn't make it.
I doubt it, why do you think that? It's rare that I've met people who worked hard in a directed way without becoming quite successful. There are too many ways to succeed in this life for your ratio of 1 to 1000 to actually be true.
On the other hand, I've met plenty of people who thought that they had worked hard, then given up, and told themselves that it was impossible and stopped trying. I've never met one of them that actually achieved success.
Occasionally you will find someone who was talented, and worked hard, and expected the world to be dropped in his lap. This type of person is almost always disappointed. Success rarely will come to you; it's something you have to go and take.
Spoken like someone who has no idea how the world works. Success doesn't come to you like the lottery......people who win the lottery tend to lose it again quickly. It isn't about connections....who is going to help out a 'connection' who has nothing to give in return? Of course nobody wants to help them, those people are leaches.
We don't live in a 19th century Marxist oppression society anymore. We live in a land of freedom, where if you create things people value, you can get paid for it. In general the more value you create, the more you will get paid.
Of course, there are some tricksters who manage to get paid more than they are worth, but you will see these on all levels of society, from the poor to the rich. In fact, some of your coworkers are probably like that right now.
Start here [getaltitude.com]. But I doubt you really want to enter my world. It's too hard. Most people would rather be comfortable than powerful, and you probably fit in that category. In fact you will probably not even be willing to watch the movie all the way to the end. So you will stay in your world.
I always love these self justifications for being successful. Yeah, to be really successful, you have to work hard, you have to have some brights, of course. But, you don't mention anything about luck, or inspiration, or maybe taking credit for someone else's work. No - it's the "I'm special, I deserve it" line, all the way.
Yeah, I'm a little bit bitter. Many people are. Maybe some of us who never made it into the big time don't deserve the millions. Maybe we didn't work quite hard enough, maybe we we
Now, doesn't that really depend upon your measure of success. Say for example you just want to be generally healthy and happy, have very little desire to dominate and control others, well, that doesn't really require all that much effort at all, in fact excess effort tends to detract and not add to that lifestyle. As it turns out of fact you need to spend more time preventing other over achieving 'successful' types from attempting to destroy your peaceful lifestyle in order to feed their ego and fear drive
Your argument is old and tired. I've achieved success in my life through study and hard work; I still put in 12-14 hour days working to build my future. I've got many friends who have done the same, and none of us have achieved what we have through deception. Working hard in the relative short term for long term payoffs is nothing new; you sound like someone who feels like he's been dealt a "raw deal" in life. Most likely, you just haven't worked hard enough.
I still put in 12-14 hour days working to build my future.
That doesn't sound like a success. And I'm not trying to be mean, I work those same kinds of hours, and my main life goal now is to achieve as much leisure as practical.
It's working for long-term success, which is entirely different from "taking it easy" all the time when you're young. I'm just shy of 30 now, and I'm on track to retire at 40. Whether I actually do so will depend on how I feel then, but I can assure you I won't be working the same schedule then.
I don't believe I'm missing out on anything. From 17-22 I took an awful lot of leisure time. I've lived in a ton of places, seen an amazing amount of life, and had a heck of a lot of fun. Now it's time to build a future for myself and my family; my first child is due next year. I'd rather not be working full-time when kid hits the teen years, so I make sacrifices now instead. I also don't maintain a very active social life, preferring to spend almost every free hour I have with my wife.
That's a pretty laughable proposition. My father took a nearly identical course of action, and he's in perfect health. My grandfather (a cardiologist) is in near-perfect health, and calls "retirement" only working 30 hours a week at the hospital. We all take care of ourselves physically with proper diet and exercise (something I have struggled with on occasion, but try very hard to maintain).
Oh, and none of my immediate family are on the government dole. They chose to make good choices in life and work h
You know, if everyone used that excuse as a reason not to work hard toward their goals, zero progress would be made in the world
What the hell are you on about? Its not a reason not to work hard toward goals. I NEVER suggested people shouldn't work hard or use it as an excuse for not trying.
Any given world leader, business pioneer, or great contributor to the sciences could have been hit by a bus instead of going on to live a successful life. That didn't stop them, and it shouldn't stop anyone else.
Working hard when you're young and able to do so is a critical part of success, and depending on how you define "success" to begin with it's 99% of the equation. For example, I don't live in an expensive house. I don't drive a new car. I'm not interested in outdoing my neighbors with flashy purchases; I don't even own a television (my wife and I like to read instead).
As a result, I'll be keeping my money in the bank while my neighbors are struggling to pay their bills.
Because the top, the top couple percent, the people who make up the 'rich and powerful' is a pretty rarefied group. And its not possible for most people to make it here, no matter how hard they work at it.
It's rare that I've met people who worked hard in a directed way without becoming quite successful
Define 'quite successful'. Per the context of the conversation: it was intended to mean 'got on top', true wealth and power.
It was not 'middle class' and 'able to retire in re
Of course I am not saying everyone can get in the top two percent, that is meaningless.
Exactly!!! Thank you. That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Of course its impossible.
You could do that too.....practically anyone could, maybe you won't make billions like he did but you could easily make millions.
You were bang on with the first part, why did you stumble here? Its essentially exactly the same meaningless tautology you correctly debunked, yet now you are appealing to it. "anyone could do what buffet does, and
A dirty, dark secret of Google's is that their main product, a search engine was a copy of AltaVista, which also had the dirty secret of being a copy of Aliweb.
It's software. When you have the same problem, you're going to solve in a very similar manner. Unless the algorithms are the same, having the functionality being the same isn't copying. Linux is a copy of Unix but the underlying code is completely different.
I don't understand. TFA mentions nothing about any legal issues. Unless there's any patent infringement or trademark issues I don't see why this should be frowned upon. I don't care if Reframe is a small struggling company, as a consumer I want as many companies tearing eachother apart at the same time -- providing me with better services and lower prices. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that hinders development, and no the product might be very similar but it is not an exact copy, and even if it was I would never side with the people whom I do business with -- as that would be completely idiotic. I'm not even going to bother with the car analogies as you all know how silly this type of reasoning would be if it was applied there. What's next? Are we going to point fingers at Mozilla for not inventing the concept of the browser?
I don't understand. TFA mentions nothing about any legal issues. Unless there's any patent infringement or trademark issues I don't see why this should be frowned upon.
Eh? It talks about them in some depth. It notes that RI's patents are pending so it can't sue until they issue, but it can amend them to strengthen a potential action. It has some discussion of their copyrights, as well.
I don't understand. TFA mentions nothing about any legal issues. Unless there's any patent infringement or trademark issues I don't see why this should be frowned upon.
Eh? It talks about them in some depth. It notes that RI's patents are pending so it can't sue until they issue, but it can amend them to strengthen a potential action. It has some discussion of their copyrights, as well.
You're right, I didn't read the preamble. Still it was one sentence. You'd think there would be at least something pointing to what pending patents in specific. I don't understand how the article can be so long with so little actual substance.
This is so ridiculous. They say they founded their company in 2006. They only registered their domain in 2007 [domaintools.com]. Their patent filing is so fresh, it still says "patent pending".
Personally, I've been making tools like this one since 2001 (and I know I wasn't the only one at the time). Mind you at the time, I didn't have the Twitter/Facebook share buttons (but now, everybody has those -- so it's not like they have anything unique). Besides, the guy complains about the Twitter and the Facebook buttons they both have in common, but if you look closely, you'll see that reframe has five select boxes, and Google has four buttons, and not only is Google only using buttons (instead of checkboxes) -- it has two share buttons that reframe doesn't even have (and it's missing three options that reframeit has).
And don't get me started on those screenshots, they're way too small to read fully (even if you do view image). And the first three screenshots have the same complaint duplicated (so aside from the arrows, I'm guessing that we're missing two of his complaints).
And then, look at what he ends his blog post with.
In any case, pairing a Web annotation service with the leading search engine puts Google at the head of the Web annotation long tail, of which Reframe It, Diigo, JotSpot and others are a part.
Excuse-me!? I've never heard of Reframeit.com. Does he have third party citations to back up his claims? Traffic stats? User reviews? Anything? Personally, I have, and reframeit doesn't even make it in the top ten [makeuseof.com].
And what about jotspot.com? Weren't they bought out by Google two or three years ago. Shouldn't this guy know this if he's in the space? Besides, it's not like jotspot would even qualify as a good web annotation tool, it was way too feature-rich to be in that category the last time I saw it.
It should be frowned upon because it is unethical to go around and try to poach staff....
Google is the larger player with the largest user base around so, in your "sold out view", it should be OK to hurt the small player so the mass market can get something for free right?
It should be frowned upon because it is unethical to go around and try to poach staff....
Google is the larger player with the largest user base around so, in your "sold out view", it should be OK to hurt the small player so the mass market can get something for free right?
Who's ethics? Mine or yours? Because mine doesn't agree. Whenever someone uses the words "ethics" or "morals" you know he's about to sell you his point of view of the matter. Do you not understand that ethics and morals are highly individual and to even assume that the opposite party shares yours is insanely egocentric. Let me tell you when it is OK to "hurt the small player" or the "big player" or any "player", for me: when I profit from it -- period. That's the way any profitable company play and that's t
It should be frowned upon because it is unethical to go around and try to poach staff....
But they didn't. Reframeit is the one who went to Google. Reframeit is the one who asked them to look their site (thus explaining the registrations coming from google employees).
And how many employees does Reframeit even have? One or two? Shouldn't it be natural for Google to simply assume that those one or two guys who came to them and asked them to take a look at their site -- simply wanted to get a job at Google?
[...] this eWeek article has some interesting evidence, including suspicious user registrations by Google employees and an attempt by Google to hire off ReframeIt's lead engineer.
The article doesn't have any evidence. Low-res screenshots with a few arrows aren't convincing, even if they did look alike. If you're writing an online annotation solution, it's quite probable it will look something like your competitor's product (and like a few other things in sidebars). As for the user registrations: if none of the Reframe It employees have registered with Google to check out Sidewiki, they're stupid. Trying to hire off a lead engineer? I'd consider that a compliment, for the engineer as well as for the company. And he refused, didn't he? Furthermore, the article states clearly that the Reframe It CEO "doesn't want to sue Google," but rather, "By going public, Fishkin is hoping to get his story out there and see what happens next." The whining, cowardly 'see what sticks' - approach to competitiveness.
All I have to go on are are quotes like "suspicious user registrations by Google employees" and two browser-based applications that have a similar goal and layout. But Google is the big guy and the startup is the little guy. So...Google is evil. I have barely anything that resembles a fact, but I know the truth of it!
WTF does "suspicious user registrations by Google employees" supposed to mean? Google has over 22,000 full-time employees (who knows how many part-time). I'm willing to bet that a decent percentage of them are web savvy because...well..that's what they do. Also, how do they know that certain registrations are Google employees? Probably because they users' email was @google.com. So, let's see if I have this straight, Google decided to steal this startups (fairly obvious) idea and couldn't be bothered to at least hide it by using gmail.com and not google.com? Or maybe Yahoo! or Hotmail. Right...
As for the interface. I did RTFA and they mentioned (with picture in a link) that both apps have the same general set of buttons and similarities in their interface. It's a freakin' application that does one simple thing, it annotates web pages It's not an application that say, allows you to edit 3D objects and has a bajillion buttons (witness Blender). That's a couple of buttons and a couple of textboxes. Oh, and as to how the button arrangements are similar: the cancel button and the submit buttons are side-by-side, with the cancel on the left. Someone call the police! That's a smokin' gun right there!
I'm not saying that Google didn't steal this app, but everything so far is circumstantial at best.
WTF does "suspicious user registrations by Google employees" supposed to mean? Google has over 22,000 full-time employees (who knows how many part-time). I'm willing to bet that a decent percentage of them are web savvy because...well..that's what they do.
Exactly. If Google employees were not registering for all sorts of new services I'd almost be concerned!
Also, how do they know that certain registrations are Google employees? Probably because they users' email was @google.com. So, let's see if I have this straight, Google decided to steal this startups (fairly obvious) idea and couldn't be bothered to at least hide it by using gmail.com and not google.com? Or maybe Yahoo! or Hotmail. Right...
Why do they need to hide it? I'd be expecting Google employees to be checking out the competition all the time. You cannot patent an idea, so I can't see quite where the problem is. This is one idea why getting startup funding for stuff that is obvious or easy to copy is so hard!
"Suspicious registrations" was intended to cast the activity under a veil of guilt. It's completely unfounded because anyone from anywhere can sign-up to a free service. The offer extended to hire the lead engineer was normal business practice. Google recognized a motivated developer who possessed valuable insight and attempted to acquire him. Totally legal. The comments were intended to imply there was a contractual relationship between Google and FramIt where there was none. Without a business relationshi
Seriously. I'm not the brightest spark in the wire, but I had an idea for this 10 years ago, and even an implementation limited to a small online fan community. It never took off because the community essentially imploded and died. It used some clever JavaScript, that's about all I remember about it. These people have nothing to complain about, this idea has probably been considered by thousands and their implementation just happened to come second in the contest.
...if you look at the comments, you'll notice that everybody pretty much thinks the small startup is full of shit, and google did nothing wrong (whether they copied the idea from this startup -- and the "evidence" for that seems pretty dubious -- or not).
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday November 08, @07:18PM (#30026826)
Following TFA and you'll eventually find this comment, apparently by Reframe It's CEO..
Thank you kindly for sharing your thoughts and for letting your readers decide if Side Wiki looked to Reframe It as an example to follow when they entered the market. We're flattered by the similarities to our pre-existing product from 2008. We're exhilarated by the challenge presented by Google to work even harder, and we expect our forthcoming release of our technology to knock the socks off of anything in the space.
Bobby Fishkin
CEO of reframeit.com
source [eweek.com]
Umm.. he doesn't seem to be considering any sort of legal action to me.
It is possible, Google, like any large group of people, is made up of lots of individual people, and no one can keep track of what everyone else is doing. Thus one person at Google could be a murderer, or in this case steal someone's product, and it wouldn't mean that's the direction the entire company is trying to go.
On the other hand, these guys seem to be complaining of sour grapes if you ask me. It seems like Lunarr had a similar product as well.
Except they don't have a valid claim. The idea is not new, and almost every other web annotation product (thats right, there were plenty around before either of these) uses very similar toolbar interfaces. Of course, comparing to one of these other products isn't nearly as cool as comparing it to Google and trying to make a "big evil corporation" vs "little innocent hard-working can-do american-way startup" case.
I produced a paint program for Win 3.11 quite a number of years ago and ZOMG THE PAINT PROGRAM I
But what about all those inventors and creative types. Aren't they entitled to monopolises and control an entire market sector based on the fact that they were the first to file a completely straightforward innovation? Why must they be subject to the same competitive forces as every other field of human endeavour?
Comparison shots didn't persuade me (Score:5, Insightful)
I was expecting some damning evidence from the comparison shots [eweek.com], but it just looks like Google made their own implementation of the same features. Copying features happens, and it's not illegal.
Re:Comparison shots didn't persuade me (Score:5, Interesting)
A month after we implemented it, Google came out with the same thing. At first, the boss' reaction was "See how good an idea it was?" Of course, the idea turned out to be a turkey ("McDonalds food tastes like shit" was one of the first comments for mcdonalds.com).
It's still a shitty idea.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. Here is how the process works: http://wondermark.com/555/ [wondermark.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember this popping up back in the 90s as well, though I thought it was actually a good, if not especially novel, idea. The main issue isn't technological, it's just marketshare; in order for this to work right just about everyone has to be using the same service.
Or a standard agreed upon, so that the service provider doesn't matter...
in all honesty..... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you look at it, Toyota's share a lot of the major functionality of Fords. They all have a round steering wheel, for example; do you think they came up with that by accident, or do you think they were looking at other cars? They may have even had Fords available at the Toyota design offices in Japan.
Seriously, if you have a small idea that takes a small team less than six months to create, then you better have a really good marketing, a good implementation and sharp execution, otherwise some big company is going to do the same thing and win because they have better visibility and more resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, if you have a small idea that takes a small team less than six months to create, then you better have a really good marketing, a good implementation and sharp execution, otherwise some big company is going to do the same thing and win because they have better visibility and more resources.
Unless its an invention in which case you can patent it for a dozen years.
Or a work of 'art' that you can copyright until everyone alive today is dead.
So apparently some small ideas are very well protected, whil
Re:in all honesty..... (Score:5, Insightful)
For every one that succeeded in rising there are 1000 more who were just as talented and hard working who didn't make it.
I doubt it, why do you think that? It's rare that I've met people who worked hard in a directed way without becoming quite successful. There are too many ways to succeed in this life for your ratio of 1 to 1000 to actually be true.
On the other hand, I've met plenty of people who thought that they had worked hard, then given up, and told themselves that it was impossible and stopped trying. I've never met one of them that actually achieved success.
Occasionally you will find someone who was talented, and worked hard, and expected the world to be dropped in his lap. This type of person is almost always disappointed. Success rarely will come to you; it's something you have to go and take.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
"Success rarely will come to you; it's something you have to go and take."
Usually by force and deception.
Re:in all honesty..... (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't live in a 19th century Marxist oppression society anymore. We live in a land of freedom, where if you create things people value, you can get paid for it. In general the more value you create, the more you will get paid.
Of course, there are some tricksters who manage to get paid more than they are worth, but you will see these on all levels of society, from the poor to the rich. In fact, some of your coworkers are probably like that right now.
Parent
Where's the mode for (Score:4, Insightful)
+1, inspiringly naive
It would be nice to live in your world.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I always love these self justifications for being successful. Yeah, to be really successful, you have to work hard, you have to have some brights, of course. But, you don't mention anything about luck, or inspiration, or maybe taking credit for someone else's work. No - it's the "I'm special, I deserve it" line, all the way.
Yeah, I'm a little bit bitter. Many people are. Maybe some of us who never made it into the big time don't deserve the millions. Maybe we didn't work quite hard enough, maybe we we
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, doesn't that really depend upon your measure of success. Say for example you just want to be generally healthy and happy, have very little desire to dominate and control others, well, that doesn't really require all that much effort at all, in fact excess effort tends to detract and not add to that lifestyle. As it turns out of fact you need to spend more time preventing other over achieving 'successful' types from attempting to destroy your peaceful lifestyle in order to feed their ego and fear drive
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That doesn't sound like a success. And I'm not trying to be mean, I work those same kinds of hours, and my main life goal now is to achieve as much leisure as practical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For me, life is ab
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and none of my immediate family are on the government dole. They chose to make good choices in life and work h
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, if everyone used that excuse as a reason not to work hard toward their goals, zero progress would be made in the world
What the hell are you on about? Its not a reason not to work hard toward goals. I NEVER suggested people shouldn't work hard or use it as an excuse for not trying.
Any given world leader, business pioneer, or great contributor to the sciences could have been hit by a bus instead of going on to live a successful life. That didn't stop them, and it shouldn't stop anyone else.
Right but
Re: (Score:2)
As a result, I'll be keeping my money in the bank while my neighbors are struggling to pay their bills.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt it, why do you think that?
Because the top, the top couple percent, the people who make up the 'rich and powerful' is a pretty rarefied group. And its not possible for most people to make it here, no matter how hard they work at it.
It's rare that I've met people who worked hard in a directed way without becoming quite successful
Define 'quite successful'. Per the context of the conversation: it was intended to mean 'got on top', true wealth and power.
It was not 'middle class' and 'able to retire in re
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, kinda. The superwealthy, though their fortunes might fluctuate, are forever out of the rat race.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course I am not saying everyone can get in the top two percent, that is meaningless.
Exactly!!! Thank you. That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Of course its impossible.
You could do that too.....practically anyone could, maybe you won't make billions like he did but you could easily make millions.
You were bang on with the first part, why did you stumble here? Its essentially exactly the same meaningless tautology you correctly debunked, yet now you are appealing to it. "anyone could do what buffet does, and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's software. When you have the same problem, you're going to solve in a very similar manner. Unless the algorithms are the same, having the functionality being the same isn't copying. Linux is a copy of Unix but the underlying code is completely different.
Yes, but is it illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand. TFA mentions nothing about any legal issues. Unless there's any patent infringement or trademark issues I don't see why this should be frowned upon. I don't care if Reframe is a small struggling company, as a consumer I want as many companies tearing eachother apart at the same time -- providing me with better services and lower prices. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that hinders development, and no the product might be very similar but it is not an exact copy, and even if it was I would never side with the people whom I do business with -- as that would be completely idiotic. I'm not even going to bother with the car analogies as you all know how silly this type of reasoning would be if it was applied there. What's next? Are we going to point fingers at Mozilla for not inventing the concept of the browser?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand. TFA mentions nothing about any legal issues. Unless there's any patent infringement or trademark issues I don't see why this should be frowned upon.
Eh? It talks about them in some depth. It notes that RI's patents are pending so it can't sue until they issue, but it can amend them to strengthen a potential action. It has some discussion of their copyrights, as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand. TFA mentions nothing about any legal issues. Unless there's any patent infringement or trademark issues I don't see why this should be frowned upon.
Eh? It talks about them in some depth. It notes that RI's patents are pending so it can't sue until they issue, but it can amend them to strengthen a potential action. It has some discussion of their copyrights, as well.
You're right, I didn't read the preamble. Still it was one sentence. You'd think there would be at least something pointing to what pending patents in specific. I don't understand how the article can be so long with so little actual substance.
Re:Yes, but is it illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
This is so ridiculous. They say they founded their company in 2006. They only registered their domain in 2007 [domaintools.com]. Their patent filing is so fresh, it still says "patent pending".
Personally, I've been making tools like this one since 2001 (and I know I wasn't the only one at the time). Mind you at the time, I didn't have the Twitter/Facebook share buttons (but now, everybody has those -- so it's not like they have anything unique). Besides, the guy complains about the Twitter and the Facebook buttons they both have in common, but if you look closely, you'll see that reframe has five select boxes, and Google has four buttons, and not only is Google only using buttons (instead of checkboxes) -- it has two share buttons that reframe doesn't even have (and it's missing three options that reframeit has).
And don't get me started on those screenshots, they're way too small to read fully (even if you do view image). And the first three screenshots have the same complaint duplicated (so aside from the arrows, I'm guessing that we're missing two of his complaints).
And then, look at what he ends his blog post with.
Excuse-me!? I've never heard of Reframeit.com. Does he have third party citations to back up his claims? Traffic stats? User reviews? Anything? Personally, I have, and reframeit doesn't even make it in the top ten [makeuseof.com].
And what about jotspot.com? Weren't they bought out by Google two or three years ago. Shouldn't this guy know this if he's in the space? Besides, it's not like jotspot would even qualify as a good web annotation tool, it was way too feature-rich to be in that category the last time I saw it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It should be frowned upon because it is unethical to go around and try to poach staff....
Google is the larger player with the largest user base around so, in your "sold out view", it should be OK to hurt the small player so the mass market can get something for free right?
Re: (Score:2)
Unethical? Why? Presumably the poached staff would be paid a lot more.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be frowned upon because it is unethical to go around and try to poach staff....
Google is the larger player with the largest user base around so, in your "sold out view", it should be OK to hurt the small player so the mass market can get something for free right?
Who's ethics? Mine or yours? Because mine doesn't agree. Whenever someone uses the words "ethics" or "morals" you know he's about to sell you his point of view of the matter. Do you not understand that ethics and morals are highly individual and to even assume that the opposite party shares yours is insanely egocentric. Let me tell you when it is OK to "hurt the small player" or the "big player" or any "player", for me: when I profit from it -- period. That's the way any profitable company play and that's t
Re: (Score:2)
I can see it's time for bed, because I'm spelling like an eight-year-old.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But they didn't. Reframeit is the one who went to Google. Reframeit is the one who asked them to look their site (thus explaining the registrations coming from google employees).
And how many employees does Reframeit even have? One or two? Shouldn't it be natural for Google to simply assume that those one or two guys who came to them and asked them to take a look at their site -- simply wanted to get a job at Google?
Li
Reframelt (Score:2)
Reframelt?? I was wondering what Google was going to do with snow-melt.
Evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article doesn't have any evidence. Low-res screenshots with a few arrows aren't convincing, even if they did look alike. If you're writing an online annotation solution, it's quite probable it will look something like your competitor's product (and like a few other things in sidebars).
As for the user registrations: if none of the Reframe It employees have registered with Google to check out Sidewiki, they're stupid.
Trying to hire off a lead engineer? I'd consider that a compliment, for the engineer as well as for the company. And he refused, didn't he?
Furthermore, the article states clearly that the Reframe It CEO "doesn't want to sue Google," but rather, "By going public, Fishkin is hoping to get his story out there and see what happens next." The whining, cowardly 'see what sticks' - approach to competitiveness.
So what? (Score:2)
Software patents or no software patents? can't have it both ways.
If you don't want patents then copying of ideas will happen. It seems like a pretty obvious idea anyway.
Oh, oh, I know this one! (Score:4, Interesting)
WTF does "suspicious user registrations by Google employees" supposed to mean? Google has over 22,000 full-time employees (who knows how many part-time). I'm willing to bet that a decent percentage of them are web savvy because...well..that's what they do. Also, how do they know that certain registrations are Google employees? Probably because they users' email was @google.com. So, let's see if I have this straight, Google decided to steal this startups (fairly obvious) idea and couldn't be bothered to at least hide it by using gmail.com and not google.com? Or maybe Yahoo! or Hotmail. Right...
As for the interface. I did RTFA and they mentioned (with picture in a link) that both apps have the same general set of buttons and similarities in their interface. It's a freakin' application that does one simple thing, it annotates web pages It's not an application that say, allows you to edit 3D objects and has a bajillion buttons (witness Blender). That's a couple of buttons and a couple of textboxes. Oh, and as to how the button arrangements are similar: the cancel button and the submit buttons are side-by-side, with the cancel on the left. Someone call the police! That's a smokin' gun right there!
I'm not saying that Google didn't steal this app, but everything so far is circumstantial at best.
Re:Oh, oh, I know this one! (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF does "suspicious user registrations by Google employees" supposed to mean? Google has over 22,000 full-time employees (who knows how many part-time). I'm willing to bet that a decent percentage of them are web savvy because...well..that's what they do.
Exactly. If Google employees were not registering for all sorts of new services I'd almost be concerned!
Also, how do they know that certain registrations are Google employees? Probably because they users' email was @google.com. So, let's see if I have this straight, Google decided to steal this startups (fairly obvious) idea and couldn't be bothered to at least hide it by using gmail.com and not google.com? Or maybe Yahoo! or Hotmail. Right...
Why do they need to hide it? I'd be expecting Google employees to be checking out the competition all the time. You cannot patent an idea, so I can't see quite where the problem is. This is one idea why getting startup funding for stuff that is obvious or easy to copy is so hard!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
"Suspicious registrations" was intended to cast the activity under a veil of guilt. It's completely unfounded because anyone from anywhere can sign-up to a free service. The offer extended to hire the lead engineer was normal business practice. Google recognized a motivated developer who possessed valuable insight and attempted to acquire him. Totally legal. The comments were intended to imply there was a contractual relationship between Google and FramIt where there was none. Without a business relationshi
Re:Oh, oh, I know this one! (Score:5, Funny)
Address Line 1: "I am a Google employee"
Address Line 2: "And I'm going to steal the shit out of this app!"
ZIP Code: "LOLOL"
Parent
There's nothing new in this (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously. I'm not the brightest spark in the wire, but I had an idea for this 10 years ago, and even an implementation limited to a small online fan community. It never took off because the community essentially imploded and died. It used some clever JavaScript, that's about all I remember about it. These people have nothing to complain about, this idea has probably been considered by thousands and their implementation just happened to come second in the contest.
Annotea (Score:2, Informative)
A W3C project [w3.org] did something similar to this back in 2001. There was even a Firefox (then Mozilla) plugin [mozdev.org].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annotea [wikipedia.org]
Paradoxically funny on Slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)
Day 1: "Patents and copyright are bad. At a stretch they do nothing good for us, but most likely they severly damage creativity and development"
Day 2: "The Evil Consuming Google has just illegally ripped off the product of a small competitor; punish them!"
Shouldn't Google get a medal for saying "up yours" to the copyright and patent system?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA indeed. (Score:3, Informative)
source [eweek.com] Umm.. he doesn't seem to be considering any sort of legal action to me.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, these guys seem to be complaining of sour grapes if you ask me. It seems like Lunarr had a similar product as well.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
no one can keep track of what everyone else is doing
Google manage it with us though? :)
Re:From the end of the article (Score:5, Informative)
And it's not original. Other people have tired to launch similar products since 1999.
Here's a few of them:
http://www.icomment.com/ [icomment.com]
http://www.purplebunny.com/bbs/index5.php [purplebunny.com]
joeblowanswers.com [slashdot.org]
Fishkin is an idiot for taking this approach without doing proper research. There's nothing they can sue google for.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except they don't have a valid claim. The idea is not new, and almost every other web annotation product (thats right, there were plenty around before either of these) uses very similar toolbar interfaces. Of course, comparing to one of these other products isn't nearly as cool as comparing it to Google and trying to make a "big evil corporation" vs "little innocent hard-working can-do american-way startup" case.
I produced a paint program for Win 3.11 quite a number of years ago and ZOMG THE PAINT PROGRAM I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But what about all those inventors and creative types. Aren't they entitled to monopolises and control an entire market sector based on the fact that they were the first to file a completely straightforward innovation? Why must they be subject to the same competitive forces as every other field of human endeavour?