I don't really see how you've come to that jump in logic. They seem justified in this specific case and I see no reason how them doing this means they would sell customer data or anything like that. They have not done it with the amount of users they already have. I'm sure they've been approached at this point by a company looking to get in while they can for cheap. It just seems like you are overreacting a bit.

I guess we disagree then, but I find it a hard enough stretch to think they've got any sort of justifiable trademark claim over "Who's Near Me" just because they've got "Who Here" registered. For them to push past that, and apply their VC backed legal muscle to try and get him to hand over the wnmlive.com domain based on their "Who's Here" trademark seems, from where I sit, to be a pure evil misuse of the legal system.

While their success in getting through to summary judgement seems to indicate they've won this battle, I hope in the longer term that the repercussions for Bryant Harris & Stephen Smith & Synerge Tech Solutions & Lightbank make the outcome of "the war" somewhat less attractive for them. I know those four names have been added to my list of people who've demonstrated a failure to conduct business honorably, and any decisions or advice I make about whether to use or recommend services they're involved with will be informed by their previous behaviour.

I don't think calling something a ripoff is unfair. Yeah, they didn't invent those devices, but when they come out with their version of it which happens to be the first successful one. Then, after that device comes out every other company decides to be inspired by that it kind of is a ripoff. I'll admit that ripoff is perhaps a bit too strong of language but the sentiment is the same.

You can argue that eventually mp3 players would have succeeded, that smart phones would eventually all be flat touch screens, and that tablets would be cheap, not run a desktop os and successful. Truth is, we don't know because apple made those products a success first. To me actually making a product well, easy/fun/enjoyable to use is innovative. I really don't believe that we would see as many android tablets (well, tablets in general) if it were no for the ipad. I also still think the ipad is the best tablet because of the UI/apps and things mentioned in this article. The ipad also manages to be a pretty great price.

Wait... so your definition of whether something is "a ripoff" is based upon how commercially successful it is? So then android would by definition not be a ripoff. I must be misunderstanding your point.

I think I didn't explain myself as well as I could have. What I was saying (mean, whatever) is that when apple comes out with a device that is the first successful one of its kind they do that by doing something different. After they do that then other companies ripoff the now successful product. Sure, tablets had existed before the ipad, but not like the ipad. After the ipad came out tablets changed and the cries of everyone at first was "it is just a big ipod touch" and things of that nature. Then, the people that just don't want apple devices despite never trying them became excited about android tablets that most likely wouldn't exist with out the ipad. I know that tablets came before the ipad, but they changed that entire market. Even though they didn't make the first tablet I don't think they ripped off previous ones since they were typically bulky, used a stylus, etc...

So basicaly, when someone is successful with a product, others should not do the same thing because they were not first? Way to go to stimulate competition and innovation.

It basically was the start. Yes, other devices existed before the iphone. Not a single device did what the iphone did as well as it did. He never claimed that apple invented new technology. He is just saying that apple actually made a smart phone that was better than every other smart phone, did a touch screen right, and changed smart phones.